Sudarshan Sharma Vs. Sandeep Kadam Secretary & Anr. COPC No. 596/2024 14.07.2026 Present: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sprash Bhushan, Advocate, for the petitioner/applicant. Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General for respondents. CMP No. 17114/2026 Petitioner/applicant seeks revival of the contempt petition, which was disposed of on 07.01.2025. 2. Sudarshan Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Anr. (CWP No. 1587/2024) instituted by the petitioner/applicant was disposed of on 05.03.2024 with following operative directions: - “3. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and in case the claim of the petitioner is found to be covered by the said judgment, then same and similar benefits, as granted in Dev Raj’s case (supra) be also granted in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. Ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of.” It is an admitted position that pursuant to the above directions, the respondents issued consideration order on 06.01.2025, deciding petitioner’s case with following operative directions: - “Whereas, the entire facts of the case have been considered and it is revealed that the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 7724/2021 ruled that the diplomas from State Faculty of Ayurvedic and Unani System of Medicine prior to 2003 will be deemed as valid. Accordingly in compliance to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 1587/2024, the educational qualifications and documents of the petitioner Sh. Sudarshan Sharma were scrutinised and compared with the educational certificates of Sh. Dev Raj. Upon scrutiny, the documents (marksheets) were found to be issued by Rajkiya Ayurvedic evam Unani Chikitsa Adhikaya, (Bihar) in both the cases. Accordingly, in light of the directions of Hon'ble High Court in CWP no. 7724/2021 and 1587/2024, it is ordered that the diploma obtained by the petitioner from the Bihar State Faculty of Ayurvedic & Unani System are held to be valid for the purpose of educational qualification as per R&P Rules for the purpose of appointment to the post of APO, subject to fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions as directed by Hon'ble High Court. The petitioner may produce a copy of this consideration order during the application process for the post of APO, as and when advertised by the Department, since the matter for permission for advertisement of vacancies is already under consideration with the Government. The representation is therefore decided accordingly.” Taking note of above consideration order, the contempt petition bearing COPC No. 596/2024 instituted by the petitioner/applicant was disposed of as under: - Learned Additional Advocate General submits that compliance affidavit will be filed during the course of the day. Learned Additional Advocate General has produced a copy of the same for perusal. Alongwith the compliance affidavit, consideration order dated 06.01.2025 has also been appended. The order has been passed pursuant to the decision rendered in Sudarshan Sharma Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.1 2. Taking note of the compliance affidavit and the appended consideration order, present proceedings 1 CWP No.1587/2024 decided on 05.03.2024 are closed. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Liberty, however, is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for redressal of his surviving grievance(s), if any. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that the respondents are still in contempt of the directions issued in Sudarshan Sharma v. State of H.P. & Anr. as on 08.10.2025 (Annexure X-ii), the post of Ayurvedic Pharmacy Officer was created to comply with the aforesaid decision, yet, the petitioner has still not been appointed to the said post. 4. The respondents cannot be said to be in contempt of the judgment in question. No specific directions were issued in the judgment to the respondents to appoint the petitioner. Petitioner’s grievance is based upon office letter dated 08.10.2025 (Annexure X-II), which gives rise to an independent cause of action to the petitioner. The contempt petition instituted by the petitioner was disposed of on 07.01.2025, reserving liberty to him to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of his surviving grievances, if any. It is for the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy for the redressal of the grievances urged in this application. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Liberty is, however, reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy, in accordance with law, for the redressal of his grievances. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 14th July, 2026 (Rohit)