IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15377 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Nageshwar Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Virbahadur Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that competent authority, while passing order dated 17.09.2025 on the representation, having been filed by the petitioner, in light of judgment dated 24.07.2025 passed by this Court in CWP No. 8621 of 2025, titled Nageshwar Singh vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, has failed to take note of ground of couple case. While referring to para-5 of afore judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this Court had specifically directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on the ground of couple case, but competent authority 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 simply taking note of the fact that petitioner has already been posted in soft area, has proceeded to reject the representation. 2. Having carefully perused impugned order dated 17.09.2025 vis-à-vis mandate contained in the judgment dated 24.07.2025, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that authority concerned appears to have passed impugned order in most mechanical manner without bothering to look into the mandate contained in the judgment dated 24.07.2025. This Court, in afore judgment having taken note of the fact that petitioner has already completed normal tenure of posting at Government Senior Secondary School Mera Masit, Mandi, coupled with the fact that his wife is also working in Dharampur, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, had directed the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner on the ground of couple case, but it appears that competent authority have escaped to take note of aforesaid finding given in the judgment dated 24.07.2025 and merely taking note of the fact that petitioner has already joined at Government High School, Gahan, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, proceeded to reject the representation. 3. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply on behalf 3 of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, impugned order dated 17.09.2025 is quashed and set-aside and competent authority i.e. Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh, is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh taking note of ground of couple case expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 1. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 23,2025 (shankar)