2025:HHC:1281 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 479 of 2025 Decided on: 07.01.2025 Dr. Trilok Chand … Petitioner Versus Union of India & another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Government Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Virbahadur Verma, learned Central Government Counsel and Mr. Sumit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2-respectively. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the rejection vide Annexure P-2 dated 21.12.2024, or vide any subsequent communication, of representation of petitioner for NOC for applying for the post of Assistant Professor in ENT in AIIMS Bilaspur, may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) That the respondent State may be directed to issue NOC to the petitioner for enabling him to participate in the selection process for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in ENT in AIIMS, Bilaspur (HP), with all consequential benefits.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:1281 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the relief being prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted as the same is squarely hit by the judgment of this Court in CWP No.5593 of 2024, titled as Dr. Ajay Kumar Chauhan Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 13.11.2024, 4. Though, the Court was inclined to issue notice in the Writ Petition, however, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no purpose is going to be served by issuance of notice as the petitioner would not be able to participate in the process till No Objection Certificate is not issued, therefore, order be passed on merit. 5. This Court is of the considered view that in the light of its judgment in CWP No.5593 of 2024 (supra), wherein this Court has categorically held that no mandamus can be issued to the respondent-State to grant No Objection Certificate in favour of the candidates like the petitioner, when the respondent-State is not willing to do so in the light of exigency of service and in the backdrop of shortage of Medical Officers in the State of Himachal Pradesh, relief being prayed for cannot be granted. The petition is therefore dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 07, 2025 (Rishi)