IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10329 of 2025 Date of Decision: 27.06.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yog Raj …….Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Mr. Anshul Jairath and Mr. Piyush Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein is aggrieved of notice dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby he has been asked to explain that why his appointment as Multi Purpose Worker in the category of Scheduled Caste category be not declared as invalid on account of the fact that he belongs to General Category. As per aforesaid notice, though petitioner belongs to General Category and he had applied for the post of Multi Purpose Worker under General Category, but inadvertently, he came to be granted appointment against the post reserved for SC category. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that there was no fault, if any, of the petitioner because, while submitting his application, he never concealed that he belongs to General(UR), rather had applied for the post in question under General Category, but respondents after having scanned the documents adduced on record by the petitioner themselves proceeded to offer appointment under reserve category and as such, he cannot be removed. He further submitted that very tone and tenor of show cause notice, if perused in its entirely, clearly suggests that respondents have already made up their mind to remove him and as such, under the garb of show cause notice, services of the petitioner have been already terminated and as such, this Court needs to interfere. 3. However, having carefully perused the show cause notice dated 24.06.2025 (Annexure P-5), this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that seven days’ time has been given to the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice and final decision, if any, with regard to termination shall be taken thereafter. Since final decision qua the allegation, as contained in the show cause notice, is yet to be taken by the respondents, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. B.C.Verma, 3 learned Additional Advocate General, that present petition being pre- mature deserves to be dismissed. 4. In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, reported in AIR 2007 SC 906, the Hon'ble Apex Court, has held as follows: “14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge- sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 16. No doubt, in some very rare and exceptional cases the High Court can quash a charge-sheet or show-cause notice if it is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter." 5. Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition at this stage, with liberty to file afresh at appropriate stage. Needless to say, 4 authority concerned, while doing the needful, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order upon the show cause notice. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, if adverse orders are passed against him. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 27, 2025 (shankar)