IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 12304 of 2008. Decided on: 29th December, 2010. Satya Prakash. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): It is not in dispute that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.08.2008, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in State of H.P. and another Versus Narinder Dutt Sharma and Others, C.W.P. No. 1171 of 2005. The operative portion of the judgment reads thus: “We therefore allow the writ petition of the State only to the limited extent that the seniority of the respondents vis-à-vis the other persons appointed along with them vide letter dated 15th January, 1985 shall be drawn up on the basis of the merit in the training Course. However, the respondents must rank senior to the other persons appointed thereafter on the basis of the test conducted in the year, 1992. The petition is allowed to the limited extent as aforesaid with no order as to costs.” 2. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in view of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - the principles laid down in the judgment cited hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 29, 2010. (bhupender) - 3 -