IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15960 of 2024 Decided on: 06.01.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Sunita …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate vice Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Deepak Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Even though the respondents have not filed reply, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “A. That Respondents may kindly be directed to treat the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Professor Political Science from the initial date of taking over the erstwhile Jawalaji Degree College, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. i.e. with effect from 08-06-2016 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 along with all consequential benefits of pay fixation, arrears of salary, seniority along with 9% interest per annum.. B. That notification dated 27-08-2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of taking over of the services of the petitioner on contract basis instead of regular basis with further direction to the respondents to treat the appointment of the petitioner on regular basis from the date of taking over of erstwhile Jawalaji Degree College, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. by considering past service rendered by the petitioner along with all consequential benefits with 9% interest per annum.” 3. Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by her have already been adjudicated upon in Naveen Nischal Sood & Ors. Versus State of H.P. & Ors.2. Learned vice counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to examine her case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents are not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Naveen 2 CWPOA No.2050 of 2020, decided on 14.09.2023 3 Nischal Sood2 by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua January 6, 2026 Judge R.Atal