Mr. P.K. Sharma v. At the request

Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 190 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Devender Sharma, Advocate vice Sh. A.K.Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Cr.MP(M) No. 1049 of 2010 Notice to the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Notice be issued to respondent No. 1 returnable for 24th September, 2010. Dasti service permitted. Dasti summons be given to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for service of respondent No.1 during the course of the day today. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 82 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Cr.MP No. 725 of 2010 Allowed, in terms of prayer clause. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.Revision 172 of 2009

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. R. R. Rahi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sukrit Raj Sharam, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.D. for respondent No.2. Order dated 26th November, 2009 not complied with. In these circumstances, the order passed in Cr.MP No. 767 of 2009 is vacated. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge RSA 222 of 2008

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CMP No. 546 of 2009 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for and is granted three weeks’ time to file rejoinder. List immediately after pleadings are complete. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge CR 168 of 2003

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Report of service is still awaited. The legal representatives 1(iii) Vidya Kumari unserved. Let fresh notices for the service of these respondents be issued returnable for 28th September, 2010. In addition to the normal process, dasti summons for the service of respondents be given to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of the day today. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 192 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl.A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. for the petitioner. Cr. Revision 192 of 2010 Dismissed. No case for interference is made out at this stage. It will be open to the State to urge before the Court at the appropriate stage that offences over and above, as disclosed at present, have also been committed by the juvenile. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 191 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent. Cr. Revision No. 191 of 2010 Admit. Cr.MP No. 726 of 2010 The sentence of imprisonment is suspended subject to the petitioner herein furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dalhousie within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner shall undertake to appear before this Court as and when called for and shall further undertake to receive any sentence which may be passed against him. He shall also keep peace and good behaviour during this time. Dasti copy on usual terms September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. MMO 189 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Notice be issued to the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. The order Annexure P-6 is stayed subject to the condition that the petitioner herein shall appear before the Investigating Officer, Police Station Sadar Nahan on 24th September, 2010 at 2 P.M. The petitioner shall undertake to appear before the Investigating Officer on each and every such other date as may be directed by the Investigating Officer. He will furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer. This order is valid only till the next date of hearing. List on 27th September, 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. September 22, 2010(ms) (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge

22.09.2010 Present: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. CWP No. 4164 of 2010 Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1 to 4. Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CWP No. 1971 of 2008 and other connected matters, titled Urmila Devi vs. State of H.P. decided on 2nd July, 2010. Time to file reply prayed for. Prayer granted. Let reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within a further period of four weeks. List after the expiry of eight weeks. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 128 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Heard in part. List on 23rd September, 2010 for further hearing. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 136 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is not opposed, list on 20th September, 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision No. 125 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent. It is undisputed before me that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lac twenty five thousand only) which was awarded as compensation by the Courts below has been paid to the respondent-claimant. In these circumstances, a prayer is made that the offence be compounded under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. Since the learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties, permission to compound the offence under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is granted. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. All legal consequences shall ensue. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 181 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is not opposed, list on 28th September, 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. MMO 182 of 2010

17.9.2010 Present: Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the trial Court does not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that the learned trial Court without considering the fact as to whether the trial Court is having jurisdiction to proceed with the matter has wrongly declined the prayer of petitioner to transfer the case from Shimla to Gujarat. According to the learned counsel, jurisdiction was with Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and not in Shimla. On

1.4.2010 the case was taken up before the learned Court where it was urged that the respondent shall be discharged. Reliance was placed on an agreement purportedly entered into between the parties to show that jurisdiction to take cognizance if any was with the Courts at Bombay. This submission was rejected and the learned Court while placing reliance on judgment of the Supreme Court in Supramanium Sethuraman vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2004 Cr. L.J. 4609 and Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 Cr.L.J. 4874, held that Court had no power of review its own decision when process has been issued in the first instance. Another submission made is that the application was submitted before the learned trial Court with a prayer that the case be transferred to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Ahmedabad (Gujarat). This application was also rejected by the learned Court on the ground that it was not vested with any such power. The petitioner is now in revision. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On the question of jurisdiction, all that I need to say that it is fundamental and goes to the very root of the case. In M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1168, the Supreme Court interpreting the provisions of Section 177 relating to the place of trial of the case holds: ingredients “14. It is one thing to say that sending of a notice is one of the ingredients for maintaining the complaint but it is another thing to say that dishonor of a cheque by itself constitutes an offence. For the purpose of proving its case that the accused had committed an offence under Section 138 of the thereof are Negotiable Instruments Act, required to be proved. What would constitute an offence is stated in the main provision. The proviso appended thereto, however, imposes certain further conditions which are required to be fulfilled before cognizance of the offence can be taken. If the ingredients for constitution of the offence laid down in the provisos (a) (b) and (c) appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act intended to be applied in favour of the accused, there cannot be any doubt that receipt of a notice would ultimately give rise to the cause of action for filing a complaint. As it is only on receipt of the notice the accused at his own peril may refuse to pay the amount. Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 138 therefore must be read together. Issuance of notice would not by itself give rise to a cause of action but communication of the notice would. 19. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure determines the jurisdiction of a court trying the matter. The court ordinarily will have the jurisdiction only where the offence has been committed. The provisions of Sections 178 and 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are exceptions to Section 177. These provisions presuppose that all offences are local. Therefore, the place where an offence has been 20. committed plays an important role. It is one thing to say that a presumption is raised that notice is served but it is another thing to say that service of notice may not be held to be of any significance or may be held to be wholly unnecessary.” (at p.1173-1174) This is the fundamental law applicable. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court ordered the transfer of trial of the case in Harnam Electronic’s case supra. There is no such power with the trial Court. In these circumstances, this revision petition is disposed of with a direction that the learned trial Court shall determine the question of jurisdiction before proceeding with the trial further. I need not to add that Court shall be bound by the decision of M/s Harman Electronics (P) Ltd.’s case supra before proceeding any further in the case. Petition stands disposed of. September 17 , 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.Revision No. 71 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajna, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. An application has been filed on behalf of the complainants stating that the dispute has been amicably settled between the parties. In these circumstances, let complainants namely S/Shri Jagdish Chand and Hari Ram be present in Court on 24th September, 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge CWP(T) 2546 of 2008

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Heard in part. List on 20th September, 2010 for further hearing. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 176 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Cr.MMO 176 of 2010 Notice to the respondent. Let record of both the Courts below be called for. Cr.MP No. 702 of 2010 Notice. Reply, if any, be filed before the next date. List immediately on receipt of record. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 85 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. C.N. Singh Advocate vice Mr. Jagdish Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is not opposed, list in the first week of October, 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 80 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Ms. Lalita, Advocate vice Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard in part. At the request of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which is not opposed, list on 17th September, 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MP(M) 1040 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Cr.MP(M) No. 1040 of 2010 Learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions received from ASI Pawan Kumar, submits that petitioner has joined the investigation and she is reporting to the police as and when called for. As such, her custodial interrogation is not required. In these circumstances, the order dated 17th September, 2010 is confirmed. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be bound by all conditions as ordered therein. She shall apply for bail afresh before the trial Court when the challan is filed. Petition stands disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 159 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.Revision No. 36 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Shri K.S. Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl.A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent. Heard in part. List on 15th September, 2010 for further hearing. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge C. Review No. 98 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the petitioner. Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, for the respondents. List alongwith COPC No. 141 of 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 100 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.D. Vasudeva, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A. G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2. At the request of learned counsel appearing the petitioner, which is not opposed, list on 9th September, 2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision No. 39 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy/ Advocate Generals for the respondent. Heard in part. List on 17th September, 2010 for further hearing. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MP(M) No. 1058 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Cr.MP(M) No. 1058 of 2010 Notice to the respondent. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent/State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in FIR Nos. 216/2010 and 221/2010 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, Police Station Dharamshala. List on 28st September, 2010. In the mean time, the petitioners shall report at Police Station, Dharamshala on 23rd September, 2010 at 11 AM. It is further directed that:- (a) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner try to overawe or influence the prosecution witnesses; (b) The petitioners shall join investigation as and when called for; (c) The petitioners shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation; (d) The petitioners will not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala; (e) The petitioners shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer; (f) It is clarified that in case of violation of any of the conditions imposed, they shall be arrested forthwith without reference to this Court. List on 28th September, 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MP(M) No. 1048 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Vikas Bharrdwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. A.G with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent. Cr.MP(M) No. 1048 of 2010 Notice to the respondent. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent/State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in FIR No. 216 of 2010 registered under Section 420 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. List on 28st September, 2010. In the mean time, the petitioners shall report at Police Station, Dharamshala on 24th September, 2010 at 10 AM. It is further directed that:- (a) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner try to overawe or influence the prosecution witnesses; (b) The petitioners shall join investigation as and when called for; (c) The petitioners shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation; (d) The petitioners will not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala; (e) The petitioners shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer; (f) It is clarified that in case of violation of any of the conditions imposed, they shall be arrested forthwith without reference to this Court. List on 28th September, 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr. Revision 111 of 2004

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard in part. List on 22nd September, 2010 for further hearing. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Lalit Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Cr.MP(M) 1043 of 2010 Mr. P.K. Sharma Addl. Advocate General with Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondent. Cr.MP(M) No. 1043 of 2010 Notice to the respondent. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent/State. List on 21st September, 2010. In the mean time, the petitioner shall report at Police Station, Nalagarh on 18th September, 2010 at 11.00 A.M. It is further directed that:- (a) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner try to overawe or influence the prosecution witnesses; (b) The petitioner shall join investigation as and when called for. Needless to say the police will observe meticulously all the directions issued the Supreme Court for interrogation of women/ladies; (c) The petitioner shall not obstruct the smooth progress of the investigation; (d) The petitioner will not abscond from the jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge, Solan; (e) The petitioner shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer; (f) It is clarified that in case of violation of any of the conditions imposed, she shall be arrested forthwith without reference to this Court. List on 21st September, 2010. Dasti copy on usual terms. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge

22.09.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. CWP 1946 of 2010 Mr. P.K. Sharma and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Addl. Advocate Generals, for the respondent. List again. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge CWP No. 2189 of 2009

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Khan, Central Government Counsel for respondents. It is undisputed before me that the reliefs as claimed in this writ petition relate to the Boarder area when the petitioner was serving with Armed Forces. After the Constitution of Armed Forces Tribunal, the exclusive jurisdiction lies with that Tribunal and this Court cannot deal with the subject matter of this petition. Section 34 provides: “34. Transfer of pending cases-(1) Every suit, or other proceeding pending before any court including a High Court or other authority immediately before the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, being a suit or proceeding the case of action whereon it is based, is such that it would have been within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, if it had arisen after such establishment within the jurisdiction of such Tribunal, stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal. (2) Where any suit, or other proceeding stands transferred from any court including a High Court or other authority to the Tribunal under sub-section (1),- (a) the court or other authority shall, as soon as may be, after such transfer, forward the records of such suit, or other proceeding to the Tribunal; (b) the Tribunal may, on receipt of such records, proceed to deal with such suit, or other proceeding, so far as may be, in the same manner as in the case of an applicable made under sub-section (2) of section 14 from the stage which was reached before such transfer or from any earlier stage or de novo as the Tribunal may deed fit.” In these circumstances, a direction is issued to the Registry that the petition be sent to the Tribunal Bench, at Chandigarh for decision in accordance with law. Petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge CWP 349 of 2009

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Sharma and Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Addl. Advocate Generals, for the respondent. The petitioner approached this Court against the action of the respondents for not granting him the increment which was illegally withheld by the respondents as, according to them, the petitioner was not possessing B.A. qualification with English. Clause 3 of the Office Order dated 31st October, 1995 reads:- “(iii) those who have not passed BA with English as one of the elective subjects, shall not be given increment till they pass BA English. They shall submit proof of their having passed BA English to the department, only thereafter increment will be given.” During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has brought a number of subsequent events to the effect that now he is being reverted, as according to the communication dated 13th August, 2010, he has not been eligible for being appointed for the post of TGT. In these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with following conditions: (a) The respondents shall give the petitioner a due notice and opportunity of being heard before any action is taken; (b) Annexure P/A shall not be enforced till and so long the petitioner has not been heard in the matter; (c) In case the adverse decision is taken against the petitioner, he shall be given an opportunity and the order will not be implemented against him for a period of one month in order to enable the petitioner to approach this Court. Decision shall be taken expeditiously. Petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.MMO 5 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Balwant Kukreja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate, for the respondent. List on 7th September, 2010 alongwith Cr.MMO No. 77 of

2010. September 22, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge Cr.M.P. (M) No. 673 of 2010

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent. Notice to the respondents. Learned Additional Advocate General waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent/State. List on 14th July, 2010. September 22, 2010 Sud), (Dev Darshan Judge C.W.P. No. 2608 of 2008

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents. The petitioners are ex-servicemen, whose grievance in this petition is that the State is making recruitments to the vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen in the State including the posts available with the respondents dehorse the rules for recruitment and the procedure prescribed by Hand Book of Personal Matters, Volume (5) 1, Government of Himachal Pradesh. Turning to the facts of the present case, I find from the reply filed by respondents, that they are infact followed this procedure and some vacancies relating to the ex-servicemen are filled up. This claim is resisted and contested by the petitioner. There is no dispute before me that certain percentage to vacancies has been reserved in the State of Himachal Pradesh for ex- servicemen. It is also not disputed before me that the procedure for filling up these vacancies is contained in Hand Book of Personal Matters, Volume (5) 1 in Chapter 18 clause 18.4.1. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents that they shall fill up the vacancies reserved by the State of Himachal Pradesh, if any, for ex- servicemen in accordance with law and by strictly following the procedure prescribed in Hand Book of Personal Matters, Volume (5) 1. Liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court again in case of non compliance of directions issued by this Court. Petition disposed of. September 22, 2010 Sud), (Dev Darshan Judge Cr. Revision No. 165 of 2003

22.09.2010 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondent. Heard in part. List after two weeks. September 22, 2010 Sud), (Dev Darshan Judge Cr. Revision No. 67 of 203

22.09.2010 Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent. This case has been called out in pre-lunch and also post lunch session, but no body appears for the petitioner. List on 12th July, 2010. September 22, 2010 Sud), (Dev Darshan Judge