JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The State of Himachal Pradesh is aggrieved, by the verdict recorded by the learned Single Judge, of, this Court in CWP(T) No. 13833 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court, had, quashed and set aside Annexure A-8 and has also made a pronouncement upon the appellants concerned, for the respondent herein being regularized, as Manager Market and Procurement w.e.f. 18.05.1998 along with all consequential benefits. 2. The fulcrum of the entire lis, engaging, the parties before this Court, is squarely rested, upon, the imminent fact, of, the respondent herein being in pursuance to an advertisement issued in the year 1995, hence successfully participating in the interview, leading to (a) his being appointed against the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement; (b) the aforesaid appointment vis-a-vis the post of Manager Market and Procurement being on a temporary basis; (c) his appointment being made on a contractual basis. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with much vigour, before, this Court (i) that the refusal, by the competent authority concerned of the recommendations, made by the Selection Committee concerned, in its meeting held on 2nd September, 2000, vis-a-vis the regularization of respondent herein against the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement, rather warranting acceptance, (a) given a FIR being lodged against the respondent herein; (b) the pendency of the FIR being in contemporaneity, with, the Selection Committee concerned, making recommendations vis-a-vis the competent authority concerned, for regularizing the services of the respondent herein, against, the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement; (c) hence with the aforesaid FIR rendering the respondent herein to be unsuitable for his being recommended by the Selection Committee Concerned, for his being regularized; (d) thereupon, it was not befitting for the learned Single Judge, to, omit to mete deference, to the apposite FIR. 4. 4. However, the merit of the aforesaid espousals, is, rendered unsafe for acceptance by this Court for the reasons, especially (a) the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, occurring, in a case title as Union of India and others versus K.V. Jankiraman and others, (1991)4 SCC 109 , (b) making, it abundantly clear that, denials of apposite service benefits, to, the employee concerned, only, on anvil, of pendency of disciplinary/criminal proceedings against him, emphatically, in contemporaneity to the selection committee, making the apposite recommendations, for promotion of the delinquent concerned, to the higher post, for, hence assuming validity (ies), enjoining (c) qua at the relevant time, of ,the apposite recommendations, being made by the selection committee concerned vis-a-vis the delinquent concerned, the latter being served with charge memo/charge sheet vis-a-vis the disciplinary proceedings, (b) besides his being charged, for the offences alleged against him in the apposite FIR. (c) necessarily hence the aforesaid apt principle engrafted in the relevant paragraph, of, the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, enjoins satiation, by potent material in consonance therewith hence existing on record. However, with no material being placed on record, (d) in display, of in contemporaneity, with, the selection committee making recommendations vis-a-vis the competent authority, for granting benefits of promotion vis-a-vis the delinquent concerned, thereat his being purportedly charge sheeted, in departmental proceedings, reared, inconsonance therewith, (e) also his being served with memo/article of charge, (f) nor is there is any evidence existing on record, in display of the FIR, upon its being registered, against, the respondent herein his being charged sheeted by the court concerned, for the offences alleged, against, him in the apposite FIR. Contrarily therein, is a display, in Annexure P-5, of the trial Court concerned, accepting the report of the IO concerned for cancellation of the apposite FIR. In the absence of the aforesaid material, the bar constituted in the afore referred decision, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, the relevant paragraph whereof stand extracted hereinafter, against, benefits of promotions being meted vis-a-vis the delinquent concerned, stands not, visibly attracted against the respondent herein. Contrarily, the apposite aforesaid material, does pronounce, that the competent authority was, not well, within the domain of the verdict recorded in K.V. Janikiraman's case (supra), in its, not accepting the recommendations, of, the selection committee concerned, for benefits of promotion/regularization, being meted vis-a-vis the respondent herein. Contrarily, the apposite aforesaid material, does pronounce, that the competent authority was, not well, within the domain of the verdict recorded in K.V. Janikiraman's case (supra), in its, not accepting the recommendations, of, the selection committee concerned, for benefits of promotion/regularization, being meted vis-a-vis the respondent herein. Relevant paragraph No.17, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.V. Janikiraman's case (supra), reads as under:- “17. There is no doubt that there is a seeking contradiction with the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench-has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion No.1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny the said benefit they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge memo/charge sheet has already bee issued to the employee. Thus, read, there is no inconsistency in the two conclusions.” 5. The learned Additional Advocate General has also contended, that, with the prevalence of the verdict, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered, in S.S. Rana versus Kangra Central Co-operative bank, within verdict whereof, the High Court, is barred to exercise jurisdiction in respect, of employees serving in co-operative society(ies), as the appellant No.2 herein, (i) thereupon, the learned Single Bench of this Court, was, disempowered to assume jurisdiction upon CWP(T) No. 13833 of 2008, besides concomitantly, his rendition is, for want of jurisdiction, hence vitiated. 6. However, the aforesaid address made before this Court would carry immense vigour, only upon, in evident contemporaneity, of, the impugned rendition being pronounced, by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the State Administrative Tribunal, in tandem, with the verdict supra, of, the Hon'ble Apex Court, though holding jurisdiction, to pronounce an adjudication thereon, (i) being in existence, at the stage of the recording of the impugned rendition by the learned Single Judge of this Court. However, CWP(T) No. 13833 of 2008, stood received by this Court, from, the State Administrative Tribunal , subsequent to its being disbanded, (ii) thereupon, obviously when at the time, of, pronouncement of the impugned rendition, upon, CWP(T) No. 13883 of 2008, the State Administrative Tribunal being not in existence, hence, the exercise of jurisdiction, by this Court, upon, the aforesaid CWP(T), would not attract, the ill effects, of, the aforesaid verdict rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S. Rana's case (supra), nor the rendition pronounced by the learned Single Judge of this Court is, for any purported want of jurisdiction, hence vitiated. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General has contended with vigour, of, the apposite post, in accordance with the prescribed apposite roster, falling, to the reserved category, hence, the petitioner was not entitled, to stake a valid claim, for, his being regularised or his being promoted vis the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement, where against, he was initially appointed, (i) only on a contractual basis. The effect of the aforesaid submission loses its vigour, in, the face of an averment, occurring in the reply furnished by the appellants vis-a-vis the writ petition, of, a letter, of, 20.08.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel, letter whereof is borne in Annexure R-IV, qua the post being notified to be filled up, from, the open category. Since, the proceedings of the selection committee concerned, occur subsequent thereto, thereupon, if the apposite post earlier thereto, was falling to the category, not appertaining to the category of the respondent herein, it, would not erode the claim, of, the respondent herein, for his being regularised vis-a-vis the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement, (ii) especially with no aspirant falling in the reserved category hence coming forth, to contest the initial appointment of the respondent herein, on a contractual basis against the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement. 8. 8. The summon bonum of the above discussion, is that, since inconsonance with the apposite Rule 10, of, the apposite R&P Rules, the respondent herein, was, after his successfully competing, for, the advertised post, hence appointed on a contractual basis as Manager Marketing and Procurement, under, the employer concerned AND (i) even if his initial appointment, was, on a contractual basis, it would not render belittled his claim, for, his being regularized or promoted against the post of Manager Marketing and Procurement, (ii) given there being cogent material, in display of his purportedly committing any misconduct, during the period, of, his rendering contractual services, against, the post where against he stood appointed on a contractual basis. Since, the aforesaid discussion, unveils of, the effect of the apposite FIR, not, holding any adversarial impact, upon, the recommendations of the selection committee concerned, against meteings, of, benefits of regularization, vis-a-vis the respondent herein, vis-à-vis the apposite post, thereupon, it is to be concluded, of, the respondent herein being entitled, to the relief granted. 9. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. In sequel, the judgment impugned before this Court is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.