IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1546 of 2024 Decided on: 18th September, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Baldev Raj …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 09.04.2022 (Annexure-C) within a time bound period by taking into consideration the SMC policy as well as decision dated 22.05.2014 (Annexure-D), whereby the PTA teachers were reinstated in service who were ousted by the regular hand and in the present case, the petitioner has also been ousted from service due to joining of regular hand. (ii) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, directing the respondent department to reinstate the services of 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 the petitioner as Physical Education Teacher in any of the schools in District Mandi, in view of the fact that the petitioner has already served the respondent department as Physical Education Teacher on SMC basis from the year 2011 till 2018 and vacancies are lying vacant in different schools in District Mandi, H.P.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the reliefs prayed for by him have already been adjudicated upon in Hans Raj Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to examine his case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Deputy Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 4. Having regard to the afore-submissions, but without examining the merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/ competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Hans Raj2 by passing appropriate order, within a period of six weeks from today. The decision so arrived at shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 2 CWPOA No.4078 of 2020, decided on 12.09.2025 3 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 18, 2025 Judge Mukesh