IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1103 of 2025 and LPA No.445 of 2025. Decided on: 16.07.2025. Meena Kumari and others ....Appellants Versus State of H.P. & others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General for the respondents-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral). Consideration is sought to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.105 of 2023 titled Smt. Meena Kumari & others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, decided on 06.01.2025. 2. The challenge as such had been raised to the order dated 18.01.2022 (Annexure P-8), passed by the respondents in the writ petition, wherein on account of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules, which provide batch wise recruitment to be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 made after 31.03.2014 and thus, providing the cut off date as such for reckoning the date of issuance of the original certificate of BA with Hindi as elective subject/B.A. after Prabhakar by passing English and additional subject/M.A. Hindi and on issuance of original certificate of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.), on the basis of which eligibility of the candidate would be reckoned. 3. The learned Single Judge had also reproduced the Rules in question, which have also been appended with the present appeal. The note 2 (a) “Essential Qualification: (i) & (ii)” of notification dated 16.11.2013 details amendments made in the Himachal Pradesh Elementary Education Department, Language Teacher, Class-III (Non-Gazetted) Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2009 to this extent. Similarly, it has been noticed that once the said Rules itself were not challenged and there is no challenge to the essential qualification in the writ petition as such, accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. 4. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioners submits that they may be given the liberty to challenge the Rules in question by resorting to the remedy available under law. 3 5. Accordingly, we dispose of the present petition by condoning the delay as such and giving the liberty to challenge the essential qualification and Rules in accordance with law. 6. All pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 16th July, 2025 (munish thakur)