IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10022 of 2023 Decided on: 08.08.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar and Anr. ....Petitioners Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ________________________________________________________________ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Though the respondents have not filed the reply, however, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard at this stage. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of following reliefs: - “i). That the writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, quashing the action of the respondents, whereby the petitioners have been denied the appointment to the post of TGT (Arts) w.e.f. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 03.11.2014 , being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional and against the settled law of service jurisprudence. ii. That the writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be issued, directing the respondents as having been deemed to be have been appointed on and w.e.f. 03.11.2014 and further regularization from the due date i.e., from the date others incumbents have been regularized on the basis of the same selection process along with all consequential benefits.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have preferred representation dated 09.10.2023 (Annexure P-8); Petitioners would be content if their representation is considered and decided by the respondents, keeping in view the law laid down in (Sanjay Dhar Vs. J&K Public Service Commission and another2. Learned Deputy Advocate General has no objection to this prayer. 4. Having regard to above submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in light of aforesaid decision, within a 2 (2000)8 SCC 182 - 3 - period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The decision so arrived at, shall be communicated to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge August 8, 2025 R.Atal