( 2026:HHC:27575 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1828 of 2019 along with CWP No. 2033 of 2019 and CWP No. 277 of 2021. Decided on : 8 th July , 2026. 1. CWP No. 1828 of 2019. Vipin Verma ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents. 2. CWP No. 2033 of 2019. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ....Respondents. 3. CWP No. 277 of 2021. Sangram Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Priyanka Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? “i) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued and Annexure P-6, list of the 131 selected candidates for the post of driver as against the advertisement dated 11.01.2019 may very kindly be quashed. ii) That respondent may very kindly be directed to produce the entire record with respect to the merit prepared for final driving test conducted with effect from 03.06.2019 to 03.07.2019 before this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of law and justice. Iii) That respondents may very kindly be directed to offer appointment to the petitioners to the post of driver against the advertisement (Annexures P-1/P-2), since they have successfully qualified preliminary as well as final driving test in the interest of law and justice.” 2. On the last date of hearing, the following order was passed: With the consent of the parties, the case was taken up for consideration today. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the averments made in the writ petition as well as reply filed by the Corporation has submitted that interest of justice would be served in case the Corporation is directed to produce the record, in terms of the averments made in Para-3 to 5 of the reply, because, if averments made therein are strictly in terms with the record, then, probably the petitioner might not have much to say. In light of the request so made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the case is ordered to be listed on 08.07.2026. Learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation to produce the record, in terms of the averments made in Para 3 to 5 of the reply of the writ petition.” 3. Today, learned counsel for the respondent-corporation has produced the original record which demonstrates that what is mentioned in para 3 to 5 of the reply is borne out from the record. Record stands perused by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s). Though, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that there were discrepancies in the selection process, but this Court is of the considered …2… ( 2026:HHC:27575 ) view that in light of the last order passed by this Court, as the record demonstrates that what is mentioned in para 3 to 5 of the reply is substantiated from the same. now the petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate the issue. Nothing survives in these writ petitions and the same are accordingly closed as no reliefs, as prayed for, can be granted to the petitioners. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 8th July, 2026. (jai) …3… ( 2026:HHC:27575 )