IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2640 of 2010. Decided on: 16th July, 2010. Priyanka Thakur and ors. ….. Petitioners. Versus H.R.T.C. and anr. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “(i) That the action of respondents in not allocating/reserving three seats in MBBS course for candidates of backward area in respondent No.3 college may kindly be held wrong, illegal, arbitrary and same may kindly be quashed. (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to reallocate/reserve three seats in MBBS course, in respondent No.3 College for candidates belonging to backward area of the State, out of total 65 for the session 2010-2011. (iii) The respondents may further be directed to reserve two more seats for candidates of backward area out of proposed 35 additional seats in respondent No.3 for the session 2010-2011. (iv) The respondents may further be directed to draw a separate combined merit list of candidates of Backward area for respondent No.3 College, Dr. 2 Rajinder Parshad Medical College and Government Dental College.” 2. As far as petitioners are concerned, it appears that two of them could not qualify in the entrance test and one who qualified also does not reach the required rank in the merit list. However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on principle the issue still survives as is seen from the reply itself. Be that as it may. Now the question of reserving seats for backward area for the current year does not survive as far as the petitioners are concerned since the petitioners are still interested on principle to have the matter considered by the Government on all these aspects. This writ petition is disposed of as follows: 3. The petitioners may point out their grievances, in the light of the stand taken in the reply-affidavit before the first respondent within a period of one month from today. The first respondent shall consider the matter thereafter, adverting to the submissions made in the representation and appropriate action in accordance with law and justice shall be taken thereon within another three months in view of the factual situation, referred to above. 4. The interim order passed on 3.6.2010 is recalled and vacated. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 16th July, 2010. ( Justice Rajiv Sharma), (tr) Judge. 3