IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9163 of 2025 Date of Decision: 2.6.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Anil Jamwal ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of present petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “(i) That the Annexure P-3 order dated 18.12.2024 may be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondent may be directed to demote back the Petitioner to the post of JBT Teacher and thereafter grant him seniority and pay fixation as per the JBT Teacher. (iii) That the Petitioner may be granted the seniority on the post of JBT Teacher. (iv) That necessary fixation may kindly be done in case of the Petitioner on the post of JBT Teacher.” - 2 - 2. Before Reply, if any, could be received from the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that petitioner be permitted to make representation to the competent authority for redressal of his grievance with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the same in time bound manner. 3. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition is that petitioner has been promoted as TGT (Non-Medical), which was later on withdrawn on account of pendency of some case. Petitioner herein filed petition to the competent court of law laying therein challenge to order of demotion, but no interim relief was granted by erstwhile HP Administrative Tribunal and as such, petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 920 of 2017, alongwith other persons. In the afore proceedings, parties were directed to maintain status quo, as a result thereof, petitioner kept on working as TGT. Petitioner subsequently, withdrew his name from afore petition vide order dated 21.11.2024 (Annexure P-2). Now the petitioner does not want any promotion to the post of TGT, rather wants to work against the post of JBT, as such, he filed representation to the Director (Elementary Education), which was rejected vide order dated 26.12.2024. Now petitioner has again submitted representation praying therein to competent authority to review its earlier decision and permit the petitioner to work against the post of JBT. - 3 - 4. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation within one week, as detailed herein above, which shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within two weeks. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful shall afford an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate order taking note of the facts as detailed herein above. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. June 2, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge