IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10756 of 2025 Decided on: 11.07. 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Asha Kumari` ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Mohan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Eleven years after termination of her services, petitioner seeks direction to the respondents that she be re- engaged as TGT (Medical) on Parent Teacher Association (PTA) basis and further her service be regularized with all consequential benefits. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 3. Heard. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that she was appointed on PTA basis at GSSS Kunhoo on 05.09.2009. Her services were dispensed with sometime thereafter. After removal from school, petitioner requested the Department for her re-engagement. She was re-engaged against a vacant post of TGT (Medical) at GSSS Karsog in May 2012, where she continued to render her services till February 2014, however, petitioner was not allowed to work thereafter. Petitioner claims that many similarly situated persons, who were appointed alongwith her, were re-engaged and have also been regularized. No documents pertaining to so called other similarly persons have been appended alongwith the petition. 4. It is petitioner’s own case that she has not been allowed to work as PTA Teacher after 2014 on joining of regular teacher. The first representation ever preferred by the petitioner, seeking her re-engagement was on 10.10.2024 (Annexure P-4). In the given circumstances, relief of reengagement and regularization with consequential benefits, as prayed for - 3 - by the petitioner, cannot be granted to her. Claim of the petitioner suffers from unexplained delay and laches. 5. In view of above, there is no merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 11, 2025 R.Atal