Sonika Vs. State of H.P. and Anr. CWP No.9249 of 2024 11.04.2025 Present: Mr. Raj Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. While placing on record communication dated 11.04.2025, issued under the signatures of Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh, learned Additional Advocate General states that in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, sought to be complied with, representation of the petitioner has been considered, but since she has not been found similarly situate to Taj Mohammad, her representation has been rejected. Having perused copy of order dated 10.04.2025, enclosed with the afore communication dated 11.04.2025, passed in purported compliance of judgment, sought to be complied with, this Court finds force in the aforesaid submission of learned Additional Advocate General. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingly the same are closed, however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance, if so advised. April 11, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (Rajeev Raturi) Judge