ORDER In I.A. No.3569 of 2013, the petitioner has prayed for disposal of W.P.(S) No.5554 of 2011 in terms of the order passed in W.P.(S) No.583 of 2010 (Madhusudan Murmu Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board & Ors.) and analogous cases, which was upheld in L.P.A. No.226 of 2011. 2. It has been submitted that the petitioner's case is exactly similar to that of Madhusudan Murmu and other persons, whose writ petitions were allowed. 3. In writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue appointment letter for the post of Assistant Engineer (I.T.) in the Respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board. The petitioner has claimed that he has been duly selected for the post by the Recruiting Agency, namely, Respondent No.4 and the person below him in the merit list has been appointed. 4. It has been submitted that the petitioner has completed four years' degree course in Bachelor of Engineering from Guru Ghasidas University, Bilashpur, Chhatisgarh in Computer Science and Engineering. He had appeared in the examination held for appointment on the posts of Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer pursuant to the advertisement of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board dated 19th September, 2008. Thereafter, three corrigenda were issued, seeking certain changes or modification. The Respondent-Board had appointed a Recruitment Agency. The said agency had conducted a written test for the said purpose on 14th December, 2008. The petitioner was issued interview/call letter. He had appeared before the Interview Board and on the basis of the result of the examination and Interview, his name figured in the list of successful candidates. Altogether 135 candidates were selected out of which 75 candidates have been appointed and the petitioner, who is at Sl. No.1 of the said list, has not been appointed. No reason has been assigned for not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner. 5. Similarly situated persons also aggrieved by such discrimination, including one Madhusudan Murmu, had filed writ petitions. All the writ petitions, being W.P.(S) No.583 of 2010 and analogous cases, were heard together. After hearing the parties, the writ petitions were allowed, holding the writ petitioners of those cases entitled for appointment. The respondents were directed to appoint those persons, who have been finally selected. All the writ petitions, being W.P.(S) No.583 of 2010 and analogous cases, were heard together. After hearing the parties, the writ petitions were allowed, holding the writ petitioners of those cases entitled for appointment. The respondents were directed to appoint those persons, who have been finally selected. The petitioner was also duly selected and his case is covered by the said decision of this Court, but appointment letter has not been issued to him on the ground of pendency of this writ petition. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the Jharkhand State Electricity Board has accepted the said position and submitted that this writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the case of Madhusudan Murmu and other analogous cases (Supra). 7. In view of the said admitted position, this writ petition as well as I.A. No.3569 of 2013 are disposed of, directing the Respondent No.1 to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on the basis of his selection, as has been done in the case of similarly situated persons, within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petition disposed of.