IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2577 of 2024 Decided on: 07.05.2026 Vivek Parmar .…Petitioner. Versus Union of India and Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Servedaman Rathore, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to reengage/reinstate the petitioner to continue serving as TGT physical and to renew the contract of service of petitioner. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 to 4 to regularize the service of the petitioner as TGT physics who has been working as TGT for last more than 6 years. iii. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the advertisement qua post of TGT Science (Annexure P-8) issued by respondent school authorities to engage new TGT, made in contravention of law, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law. iv. Issuance of an ex parte ad interim order or direction to respondents No. 1 to 4 to reengage/reinstate the petitioner and let him continue the service as TGT Physics and further not to recruit/Engage any other person for the said job, during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. In light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dileep Kumar Pandey Vs. Union of India, Civil Appeal No. 10899 of 2013, as the present writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, the same is closed, with liberty to the petitioner, as prayed for, to invoke the jurisdiction of the appropriate Fora, if so advised. It is further observed that the time spent by the petitioner while pursuing this petition before this Court, be taken into consideration by the appropriate 3 Fora, in case its jurisdiction is invoked, while considering the question of limitation, delay and laches. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 7th May, 2026 (sushma)