IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8669 of 2025 Date of Decision: 26.5.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Thakur ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(1)That in view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances the impugned select list (Annexure P-3) for the post of constable general duty (male) may kindly be quashed and set aside being wrongly prepared by the respondents, contrary to the law and instructions issued by the State Government dated 20.8.1998, in the interest of justice and fair play. (2) That in alternative of prayer No. (1) the respondents may kindly be directed to select the petitioner as he is in top 4 candidates under the category of IRDP under the general category being meritorious as the as the last candidate of general category has obtained 68 marks and the above- - 2 - mentioned top 4 candidates under the category of IRDP have obtained more than 68 marks. Thereafter, the respondents may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the present petitioner under the category of IRDP as the petitioner is figuring at Sr. No.3 of the waiting list being covered matter judgment dated 09- 04-2024 in CWP No. 3877 of 2019.” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this court to judgment dated 9.4.2024, passed in CWP No. 3877 of 2019, titled Vijay Kumar v State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., to state that petitioner in afore case has been given appointment under IRDP category, as a result thereof, two posts of IRDP candidates have fallen vacant, against which, petitioner can be considered being 3rd in merit list. 3. Though at this stage, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting in appearance on behalf of the respondents, attempted to argue that waiting panel, must have expired, but he was unable to dispute that post, qua which, now petitioner can be considered, has fallen vacant in the year 2024. 4. Be that as it may, since petitioner has already filed representation to the department concerned for redressal of his grievance, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide representation of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Ordered - 3 - accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order thereupon taking note of observations made herein above. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. May 26, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge