IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7855 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajesh Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: M/s Rajesh Kumar and Vishal Verma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “I. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider the petitioner as regular with effect from the date of their initial engagement/appointment with all consequential benefits on the principle of equality as they got appointment after following complete recruitment process by the Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board Hamirpur under same requisition of seats as per 3% quota of physical handicap, in view of the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Court in CWP No. 5090 of 20220 titled as "Umesh Jaswal Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others" along with other connected 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 case, and in case Titled as Nitin Kumar Vs State of H.P CWP (OA) No. 1066 of 2019, and Pushpa Devi Vs HPU, CWP No. 4299 of 2019..” 2. Before reply, if any, could be received on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that his client would be content and satisfied in case his pending representations (Annexure P-7 and P-8) are considered and decided by the competent authority in light of judgments rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.5090 of 2020, titled as Umesh Jaswal Vs. State of H.P. and Others, decided on 19.12.2022 and CWP(OA) No.1077 of 2019, titled as Nitin Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another, decided on 22.08.2022, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that he is not averse to afore innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and pending representations, if any, filed by the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the pending representations (Annexure P-7 and P-8) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the 3 needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed speaking order thereupon taking note of the judgments, as detailed hereinabove, wherein issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if he still remains aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. p` (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 25, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)