IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 79 of 2010. Decided on: September 7, 2010. State of H.P. & ors. …..Appellants. Versus Joginder Singh. ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh,, Judge. For the Appellants: Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. AG. For the Respondent: None. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.3.2010, rendered in CWP(T) No. 11548 of 2008. The issue pertains to the appointment of Forest Guards from amongst the Home Guards. An identical issue was considered by this Court, leading to Annexure A-2, judgment dated 21.4.2010, in LPA No. 38 of 2010. The text of the judgment reads as follows: “ Appellants are the petitioners. They are aggrieved since they have not been granted benefit of 15% of the posts, reserved for Home Guards in the direct recruitment in the Forest Department. According to the petitioners, they are entitled to the same in view of Annexure P-2 communication, reflecting the decision taken by the government to reserve 15% of the posts for Home Guards. There is also contention that the petitioners had also taken part in the selection process. But the crucial question, as rightly dealt with in the judgment, under appeal, is whether the government had in fact taken meaningful steps for amending the Recruitment and Promotion rules in terms of the decision taken by them and as reflected in Annexure P- 2. Admittedly the rules have not been amended so far. Unless rules provide for a quota, the petitioners cannot rest claim for consideration against reservation since reservation is only in accordance with the Statute, duly enacted. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to move the 2 government for appropriate follow-up action in terms of Annexure P-2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even without amending the rules, the government had in fact implemented its policy of reservation of 15% seats for Home Guards in various departments. It will certainly be open to the petitioners to point out this aspect before the government in which case the government will take appropriate action in the matter in accordance with law without discriminating the petitioners. The appeal is disposed of, as above.” 2. The Writ Petitioner being identically situated as the Writ Petitioner covered by the case referred to in the judgment, extracted above, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the appeal in terms of the judgment, as extracted above. The LPA is accordingly disposed of as above. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. September 7, 2010. ( Justice Kuldip Singh), (karan) Judge.