WP(C) 2141/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The grievance of the petitioner is that although they have been selected for appointment as Constable, but because of pendency of the writ petit ion being WP(C) No. 3033/2010 challenging the selection, the respondents have no t issued the orders of appointment to the petitioners. As recorded in the order dated 18.5.2011, this Court has not res trained the respondents from making appointment to the post of Constable in the said writ petition, in which the selection has been put to challenge. The only o rder passed is that the appointments, if made would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. By the aforesaid order dated 18.5.2011, the respondents were dir ected to clarify their position in the matter. Pursuant to the said order, the r espondent No. 5 has filed an affidavit, in which it has been stated that the app ointments have been kept in abeyance in view pendency of the writ petitions bein g WP(C) No. 3033/2010, 3545/2010 and 39/2010, in which it has been provided that appointments, if made, will be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Thus, t he apprehension of the petitioners is correct that they have not been appointed on the ground of pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions with the aforesaid rid er. The said rider is not a bar for the respondent to make appointment. What has been provided is that the appointments, if made, pursuant to the impugned selec tion, will be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Thus there is no stay ord er as such restraining the respondents from making appointment. In view of the above clarification, this writ petition is dispos ed of. The respondents may deal with the matter appropriately in terms of the cl arification above.