Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21553 (HP)

NEERAJ KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

CWP/8901/2023 · 2025-09-17

Sandeep Sharma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8901 of 2023 Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Neeraj Kumar and Others …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ….Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Atul Kumar and Mr. Rajat Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 3 to 5. Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.2/State. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.6. __________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (Oral): Learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file representation to the respondent-Board for their re- engagement. 2. Since documents adduced on record by the parties to the lis suggests that there is a shortage of staff and respondent-Board requires manpower, having good knowledge in computers, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition reserving liberty to the petitioners to file representation to 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- the competent authority within a period of one week, praying therein for their re-engagement, which in-turn shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of ten days, but while doing so, respondent-Board, taking note of requisite qualification required for the post in question, may also take note of the fact that petitioners had worked against the post of JOA(IT) for approximately one year. Ordered accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 17, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)