IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.16738 of 2024 Decided on: 1st January, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Prem Prakash ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Notice. Mr. Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs: - “ i) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - setting aside the impugned Annexures P-5 and P- 9, whereby the petitioner has not been promoted to the post of Headmaster being patently illegal and arbitrary beside the same being in violation to the settle law. ii) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to redraw the promotion list to the post of Headmaster and to promote the petitioner to the post of Headmaster and he be assigned the seniority at Sr. No. over and above the private respondents in the seniority list of TGTs. and setting aside the impugned action of the respondents iii) That this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Headmaster from the due date i.e 13-7-2023 along with all consequential benefits..” 3. Admittedly, the petitioner has invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without even preferring any representation to the competent authority for the redressal of his grievances raised in the writ petition. 4. Confronted with above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be preferring - 3 - representation within two weeks from today. In case such a representation is so made, the same shall be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. The order so passed shall also be communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 1, 2025 R.Atal