JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge Petitioner has approached this Court seeking following substantive reliefs:- (i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may kindly be issued, quashing and setting aside the impugned notification dated 31.01.2025 (Annexure P-11) and Memorandum (Annexure P-13) qua the Respondent No. 2 to 5 for the post of Clerk. (ii) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondent No. 1 to re-frame merit list of General Category and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category to the post of Clerk by following the Notification dated 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-2) and further offer the appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk under Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category on the basis of his merit from the date when the Respondent No. 2 to 5 have been given appointment, with all consequential benefits. 2. Considering pleadings of parties and submissions made by learned counsel for parties, on 05.09.2025, following order was passed:- “Present petition has been filed on the ground that the petitioner had submitted an application under the EWS category to the post of Clerk advertised by respondent No.1 Vidhan Sabha vide Annexure P-4 wherein three clear cut vacancies for General Category and one clear cut post for EWS (General) Category was advertised along with other posts. It is further case of petitioner that in view of the fact that reservation under EWS Category is vertical reservation as evident from communication dated 11th June, 2019 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to all concerned Departments (Annexure P-2) and as per Clause 6 of this communication, the candidate, belonging to EWS category, scoring more marks than the candidates of General Category, is to be considered for appointment against the unreserved vacancy and his appointment is not to be counted towards the quota meant for EWS Category. It is further case of petitioner that candidates selected against General Category have scored 163 and 163.5 marks, whereas the candidate selected against EWS vacancy has scored 168.5 marks and therefore, he was to be selected against the unreserved post and the last candidate selected under Unreserved Category was not be considered for appointment. It is further case of petitioner that candidates selected against General Category have scored 163 and 163.5 marks, whereas the candidate selected against EWS vacancy has scored 168.5 marks and therefore, he was to be selected against the unreserved post and the last candidate selected under Unreserved Category was not be considered for appointment. Rather, the candidate appointed against EWS vacancy was to be selected against first vacancy of unreserved vacancy of Clerk and first and second candidates appointed against unreserved vacancy were to be selected against 2nd and 3rd vacancy and resultantly, petitioner, who is next in the merit in EWS Category was to be and has to be appointed against the vacancy reserved for EWS category. There is nothing on record in reply filed by respondents to rebut the aforesaid factual matrix. Therefore, it is apparent that respondent No.1 Vidhan Sabha has committed the mistake and error in law by not following the proper procedure in offering the appointment to the candidates as per norms applicable for the appointment. For request made by learned counsel for respondent No.1 Vidhan Sabha, two weeks’ time is granted to respondent No.1 Vidhan Sabha to look into the matter and re-draw the merit list for rectifying the mistake, failing which adverse order may follow. List for consideration on 22nd September, 2025.” 3. Today, learned counsel representing respondent No.1-H.P. Vidhan Sabha has placed on record copy of memorandum dated 20.09.2025 with submissions that in view of present petition, CWP No.5298 of 2025, petitioner has been offered appointment to the post of Clerk, on temporary basis like private respondents, in Himachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, by issuing similar orders, as were issued for appointment of other incumbents, selected and appointed through one and the same process. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that private respondents were appointed vide memorandum dated 31st January, 2025 (Annexure P-13) wherein, unlike Memorandum dated 20.09.2025 offering appointment to petitioner, the words ‘on temporary basis’ are not used in the offer of appointment, and further that in Memorandum dated 20.09.2025, there is no reference of consequential benefits to the petitioner at par with private respondents from that date of their appointment in terms of Memorandum dated 31.01.2025. 5. 5. Learned counsel for Vidhan Sabha, under instructions, by referring term and condition No.1 of both Memorandums, has reiterated that nature of appointment offered in both Memorandums is the same as the said term is identical stating that the appointment in both cases is purely on temporary basis. 6. In the given facts and circumstances, petitioner is also entitled for all consequential service benefits including financial benefits from the date of appointment of private respondents in terms of Memorandum dated 31.01.2025, because it were omissions and commissions of the respondent-Vidhan Sabha which prevented the petitioner from appointment and joining from due date along-with other appointees. There is no fault on his part. The petitioner is entitled and is held entitled for appointment from the earliest date of joining of private respondents with all consequential service benefits, including pay, increments, seniority and leave etc. However, as agreed, petitioner shall be extended all consequential service benefits from the date of initial appointment of private respondents, but actual monetary benefits shall be paid from the date of actual joining. 7. Accordingly, respondent-Vidhan Sabha is directed to issue appropriate order/memorandum within one month declaring that the petitioner shall be considered to have been appointed from the date of appointments of selectees made vide Memorandum dated 31.01.2025 with all consequential benefits, treating him in service from the date of appointment of other similarly placed incumbents appointed vide memorandum dated 31.01.2025 along-with all consequential benefits, as discussed supra, with financial benefits also but on notional basis till actual joining. 8. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.