IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.11980 of 2025 Decided on: 25th July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Babli Devi and others …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2, which is waived by Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General. Considering the order being passed hereinafter, neither reply of the petition is required to be called for from the appearing respondents nor notice is required to be issued to respondents No.3 and 4. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That condition No.10 of Annexure P-2, prescribing criteria of having 50% marks in plus two and possessing diploma in Nursery Teacher Education or equivalent with two year duration may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That the respondent No.1 may be directed to modify clause 10 of Annexure P-2 by removing condition of 50% marks in plus two and changing the term of diploma required for post from ‘two year’ to ‘one year’, by keeping other conditions intact. (iii) That respondent No.3 may be directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the recruitment process for the post of Early Childhood Care and Education Tutor as per their Districts.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had represented on 06.06.2025 (Annexure P-4) for the redressal of their grievances, though not to the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners would be satisfied in case they are permitted to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority for grant of above reliefs, whereafter, the said authority be directed to consider and decide the same within a time bound schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 3 5. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to prefer a fresh representation to respondent No.2/competent authority within a period of two weeks from today, whereafter, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioners. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 25, 2025 Judge Mukesh