IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 7434 of 2008. Decided on: 24.11.2010. __________________________________________________ Shri Mohinder Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. ... Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate. For respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G.for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Ramesh Kaundal, Advocate for respondent No.5. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. (Oral). In view of the agreement between the parties as emerges at the bar, the petition is disposed of in the light of judgment dated 14.7.2010 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP-T No. 7889/2008, titled Jai Prakash and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which also covers this matter. Text of the judgment is as follows:- “Respondent-State initiated the process for filling up the posts of Craft Instructor (Electrician). Petitioners also participated in the selection process. Respondents have recommended the names of respondents No. 4 to 6. It has come in the reply that respondent No.5 has failed to produce CTI certificate and consequently recommendations made qua him were withdrawn by the State vide letter dated 7.9.2001 as a result of which one post became available. It has also come in the reply that two candidates for appointment against these posts were 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 recommended and third candidate was also to be recommended if required by the requisitioning department. Consequently, in view of the averments contained in para 7(iii) of the reply, respondents are directed to consider the case of the candidates as per the merit list drawn at the time of the selection process for filling up the post of Craft Instructor (Electrician) against the third post. In case petitioners’ names also find mention in the panel, the appointment letter will be issued to them as per the merit. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today. In the light of above, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.” 2. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 that in case the name of the petitioner figures in the select list as the next candidate on merit, his case for appointment may be considered against the post for which the name of respondent No.4, Shri Dilawar Singh though recommended yet he was not given appointment being not eligible, in accordance with law on production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner within one month which shall be considered and finally decided thereafter within next three months. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. November 24, 2010. (cr)