IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10829 of 2025 Date of Decision: 07.07.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sh. Saheel Khan and Another …….Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioners, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel representing the petitioners is that though petitioners have participated for examination to the post of Van Mitras, Forest Beats No.3, 4 and 6, under Nahan Forest Division, but till date, no result has been declared qua afore beats, whereas examination conducted for same post qua other beats stands already declared, as is evident from the material adduced on record. He states that petitioners would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to authority concerned to consider and decide their pending representation (Annexure P-4), in time bound manner. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that though he has reason to presume and believe that by now, result must have been declared, but if not, representation filed by the petitioners shall be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law and if there is no technical hitch, result would also be declared. 3. Consequently, in view of fair stand adopted by learned Additional Advocate General, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-4) of the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass appropriate order. The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 07, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)