1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 10157 of 2011-F Decided on: 25.11.2011 Karam Chand & another .....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & others .....Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) That petitioners may very kindly be posted in their home district as JBT teacher, in the interest of Law, Equity and Justice.” 2. A similar issue was considered by this Court leading to Annexure P-3, the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 7667 of 2011, titled as Amit Kumar versus State of H.P. & 2 others and other connected matters, wherein at paragraph 5, it has been held as follows: “5. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of as follows: 1. In the event of any of the petitioners making a representation for posting against any of the vacancies in the Districts, referred to above, the same shall be considered favourably and orders in that regard shall be passed within two weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy of the representation along with the copy of this judgment. 2. In case any of the petitioners makes a representation against any vacancy in any District other than the home District, the same shall also be considered favourably and orders in that regard shall be passed within another two weeks. However, it is made clear and it shall be made clear in the orders also that the District they choose so shall be treated for all purposes as their home District in future. 3. It is however, made clear that in case in respect of any of the vacancies, referred to above, in the various Districts, recruitment process has already been set in motion by notifying those vacancies as on today, the notified vacancies shall not be tinkered in the process.” 3 3. In case the petitioners herein are similarly situated to the petitioners in the judgment, cited herein above, similar treatment shall be extended to them also as extended to the petitioners in the judgment, referred to above. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment alongwith a copy of the judgment, referred to above and a copy of the writ petition by the petitioners before the second respondent. 4. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. November 25, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (hl ) Judge.