IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 691, 698, 703 and 704 of 2011. Decided on: 23rd February, 2011. 1. CWP No.691 of 2011. Yash Paul Madaan. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No.698 of 2011. Rajinder Chandel. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. CWP No.703 of 2011. Vijay Kumar. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 4. CWP No.704 of 2011. Subhash Chand. Vs. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The prayers in the writ petitions are identical and hence one set of the prayers is extracted below: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may kindly be issued and the respondents may be directed to grant the service benefits to the petitioner after following the merit in the selection list prepared by a duly constituted selection committed as has been held by this Court in LPA No.53 of 2009 titled as Sita Ram vs. State of H.P. 2 decided on 8.12.2010 (Annexure P-1), as such the petitioner is similarly situated persons and also falls in the merit of selection list at Sr. No.16 in CWP No.691 of 2011 (at Sr. No.17 in CWP No.698 of 2011, at Sr. No.23 in CWP No.703 of 2011 and at Sr. No. 26 in CWP No. 704 of 2011), the limitation will not come in the way of the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case title K.C. Sharma and others vs. Union of India (5 Judges Bench). (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ may also be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with Shri Sita Ram in whose favour the judgment has been delivered on 8.12.2010 in LPA No.53 of 2009 and the three months time will be over on 8.3.2011, the petitioner is similarly situated person and also prays for same relief i.e. for the implementation of the merit in the selection list as prepared by the selection committed to the post of Constable (Radio Technicians) with all consequential service benefits etc.” 2. In LPA No. 53 of 2009 (Annexure P-1) this Court has held that “once the date of appointment is taken as a norm among candidates appointed on the same day, their inter se seniority has to be fixed on the basis of merit in the select list.” Since the seniority thus has to be fixed on the basis of the principle settled above and in case the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, the case of the petitioners will also be examined in the light of the principle settled by this Court in the judgment as extracted above. The needful shall be done expeditiously. 3 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 23rd February, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr) Judge.