1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. C.W.P No. 7538 of 2010-I Date of Decision: 28.12.2011 Smt. Gopi Devi Thakur, w/o Sh. Padam Singh, R/o H.P Khadi Ashram Green Field, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla-171 001, presently working as Steno Typist on contract basis in the office of the Engineer-in-chief, IPH Deptt, Shimla-171 001. .. Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Himachal pradesh through its Principal Secretary (I&PH), Government of Himachal Pradesh of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171 002. 2. Secretary , HP Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur Distt.Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh. 3. Enginner-in-chief, I&PH Department, Shimla-171 001. 4. Commissioner, Excise & Taxation, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla 171 009. 5. Superintending Enginner(W), IPH Deptt. Shimla-171 001. ..Respondents. Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. T.C Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy.A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy.A.G. Sanjay Karol, J (oral) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment dated 14.11.2011 rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Dev Raj Vs. State of H.P & Others, CWP No. 1811 of 2008 along with other connected matters, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 copy of which is taken on record. According to him the present petitioner is also similarly situated and petition thus, needs to be disposed of in terms of directions issued in the said judgment. 2. Having perused the records, I am of the considered view that facts in the instant case are similar to that of Dev Raj (Supra). In the instant case also petitioner is seeking appointment on regular and not contract basis as per merit wise recommendations made by H.P Subordinate Selection Board, Hamirpur, with respect to the requisition sent by IPH Department of the State. In Dev Raj (Supra) the Court has held that at the time of initiation of selection process, Government had not even contemplated giving appointments on contractual basis. The Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and grant all financial benefits. 3. As such, directions issued in Dev Raj (Supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case also. 4. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. December 28, 2011 (Sanjay Karol), Judge. (Priti)