IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12431 of 2025 Date of Decision: 31.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Shri Rohit Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another ….Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for State. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Notice. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents/State. Though Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, vehemently prayed for filing reply to the petition, but having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf of respondents. Similarly, this Court sees no reason to look into the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General with regard to resignation tendered by the petitioner before his joining the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), as the same is not required to be seen at this stage, rather, same shall be seen by the competent authority, while 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 doing the needful, in terms of order, proposed to be passed in the instant petition. 2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief: “A. That a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or directions may be issued directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment and reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Mining Guard in the Industries Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.” 3. Petitioner herein, after his having done Diploma in Civil Engineering, came to be appointed as Mining Guard on 13.06.2017 at Palampur on contract basis in the Industries Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh. In afore capacity, he kept on working till 21.01.2020, whereafter, on account of his being selected as Junior Engineer (Civil) in Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (deputed to work in Municipal Corporation, Shimla), vide office order dated 17.01.2020, vide communication dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-5), petitioner herein submitted resignation in the Department of Industries, so that he could as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the office of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, however, interestingly subsequent to his joining as Junior Engineer (Civil) in the office of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, some of the degree holders in Civil Engineering initiated legal proceedings on the ground 3 that they, being degree holder in Civil Engineering, were also qualified to be considered for the post of Junior Engineer. 4. This High Court allowed the case filed by degree holders and directed respondents to redraw the merit-list, as a result thereof, petitioner, who initially stood selected as Junior Engineer (Civil) and had joined the office of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department, was ousted. Though petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons laid challenge to judgment passed by High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP, but the same came to be dismissed. In afore background, petitioner through instant petition has approached this Court seeking directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P-12). On the basis of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as State of West Bengal Vs. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) and Others, arising out of SLP (Civil) No.9586 of 2024, decided on 03.04.2025, wherein in similar facts and circumstances, Hon’ble Apex Court passed the following order: “47. Some of the appointed candidates who do not fall within the category of tainted candidates may have previously worked in different departments of the State Government or with autonomous bodies, etc. In such cases, although their appointments are cancelled, these candidates will have the right to apply to their previous departments or autonomous bodies to continue in service with those entities. These applications must be processed by the respective government departments or bodies within three months, 4 and the candidates will be allowed to resume their positions. Further, the period between the termination of their previous appointment and their rejoining will not be considered a break in service. Their seniority and other entitlements will be preserved, and they will be eligible for increments. However, for the period they were employed under the disputed appointment, no wages will be paid by the State Government or autonomous bodies. Further, if required and necessary, supernumerary posts may be created for persons appointed in the interregnum.” 5. Since in the case at hand, petitioner, before his appointment as Junior Engineer (Civil), was working as Mining Guard and there is no fault, if any, of him in procuring appointment against the post of Junior Engineer (Civil), rather, he was selected on his merit, as per rule and law in vogue, coupled with the fact that subsequently degree holders also came to be held eligible by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for issuing directions to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation, in light of aforesaid judgment, deserves to be considered. 6. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition, with the direction to respondents to consider and decide his pending representation dated 23.06.2025 (Annexure P-12), in light of judgment passed in Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee) (supra), expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three weeks. Ordered 5 accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 31, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)