IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17406 of 2025 Decided on: 16th December, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Anil Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.6. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Lt. Atul Chambial (Retd.), Deputy Director Sainik Welfare, Shimla has attending the hearing. 2. Following order was passed in this matter on 12.12.2025:- “Petitioner places reliance upon decision rendered in CWP No. 11854 of 2024 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of HP and Others) decided on 21.03.2025, in support of the relief claimed in the writ petition for including names of the petitioners under the ex- servicemen quota in the recruitment process being undertaken by the respondents for filling in the posts of Constables. Further, pointing out to Annexure R-1, dated 21.02.2009, which incidentally has also been 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 deliberated upon in Vinod Kumar (supra), it was highlighted that even an employment on contract basis cannot be termed as a civil employment; Civil employment would mean employment which is regular and where the official concerned is given the benefit of reservation as ex-serviceman; The ex-serviceman once nominated/appointed on contractual basis can be considered again against higher post against a vacancy reserved for Ex-servicemen on the basis of his seniority in the ‘live register’ till he is appointed on regular basis. The reply admits the factual position that petitioners have not been given civil employment as yet. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 was confronted with the question as to why despite the admitted facts, clear instructions dated 21.02.2009 appended at Annexure R-1 with the reply and the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar (supra), the respondents have not included/sponsored the names of the petitioners in the list for appointment against ex- servicemen quota for recruitment to the post of Constable. At this stage, learned counsel prayed for and is allowed two days’ time to place on record proper instructions in this regard on the next date, failing which, appropriate order shall be passed in the matter. List on 16.12.2025.” 3. Pursuant to above order, learned counsel for respondent No.6 has placed on record office instructions dated 15.12.2025, conveying that the petitioners have now been nominated for the post of Police Constable vide office letter dated 15.12.2025. Copy of the office letter dated 15.12.2025 has also been made part of the office instructions. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of nomination of the petitioners for the post of Police 3 Constable, their grievances raised in the instant writ petition have been redressed. 5. In view of above, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2/competent authority to take further consequential action based on the nomination of the petitioners for the post of Police Constable under office letter dated 15.12.2025. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua December 16, 2025 Judge Mukesh