Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2021 DAILYLAW 1055 (HP)

UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF HP AND ORS

CWP/7954/2021 · 2026-06-23

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2021

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.7954 of 2021 Decided on 23nd June, 2026 Umesh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No.13767 of 2026 For the reasons stated therein, the present application seeking early hearing of the petition is allowed and stands disposed of. CWP No.7954 of 2021 2. With the consent of the parties, the case has been taken up for consideration today itself. 3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent for taking over the services of the petitioner as Trainer in the respondent Department in view of the Policy/Notification, dated 3.10.2015, (Annexure P-4) in the interest of justice. (b) That writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued for directing the respondent to consider the candidature of the petitioner for regularization as per policy adopted by the State Government, i.e., after a period of 5 years (Annexure A-6).” 4. A Preliminary objection has been taken by the State with regard to the maintainability of the petition at this stage on the ground that the issue being agitated by the petitioner has already achieved quietus in terms of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.540 of 2019 alongwith connected matters, titled Sanjeev Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, decided on 10.07.2019, copy whereof, is appended with the reply of the Department as Annexure R-1. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute this fact. 5. In the light of this, as obviously, this Court is bound by the pronouncement on the issue by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.540 of 2019, this petition is dismissed, in the light of the findings returned by the Hon’ble Division in CWP No.540 of 2019. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 23, 2026 (Vinod)