IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 1531 of 2025 Date of Decision: 18.03.2025 _______________________________________________________ Vinod Kumar Sharma & others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): While placing on record communication dated 17th March, 2025, issued under the signatures of ADG-cum-Director Fire Services, Himachal Pradesh, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, states that Cabinet has already conveyed its approval for issuance of the offer of appointment in favour of 40 candidates of Post Code 916-Fireman and the provisional offer of appointment to the recommended candidates can be issued by respondent No.1 after completion of all codal formalities. 2. Bare perusal of aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, reveals that recruitment process qua post of Fireman(Post 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Code 916) was completed by the H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh in the year, 2021 and thereafter, list of 40 recommended candidates was sent to the Department concerned vide communication dated 22.11.2022, but since appointment letters are not being issued to the selected candidates including the petitioners, they have approached this Court in the instant proceedings, seeking therein direction to the respondents to issue appointment letters pursuant to their selection. Vide order dated 7.3.2025, this Court having taken note of grouse of the petitioners specifically called upon learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions that “why appointment letters are not being issued to the petitioners despite their being declared selected”. In the aforesaid background, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 17th March, 2025, perusal whereof clearly reveals that after approval given by the Cabinet, process for issuing appointment letter in favour of the selected candidates including the petitioners has been already initiated. 3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court is persuaded to agree with learned Additional Advocate General that relief as prayed for in the instant petition stands granted to the petitioners and as such, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present petition. Accordingly same is disposed of, with a direction to 3 respondent No.1 to ensure that appointment letters to the recommended candidates including the petitioners are issued expeditiously, preferably within a two weeks. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievances, if any. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge March 18,2025 (shankar)