IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.6226 of 2024 Decided on: 13th November, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jasvinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulwant Singh Gill, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge CMP No.26906 of 2025 This application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been moved by the petitioner for impleadment of ‘Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh’ as respondent No.3. Looking to the pleadings, impeadment of the proposed respondent is necessary. Accordingly, the application is allowed. ‘Director Higher Education, Himachal Pradesh’ is ordered to be 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 impleaded as respondent No.3 to the writ petition. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. The application stands disposed of. CWP No.6226 of 2024 2. Notice to newly impleaded respondent No.3, which is waived by Mr. Vishwadeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General. In view of the relief claimed by the petitioner, the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the nature of order being passed hereinafter, reply to the writ petition is not required to be called for from respondent No.3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs:- “a) That Annexure P-1, may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that the petitioner be given appointment on regular basis as Lecturer (school Cadre) instead of contract basis with all consequential benefits including pay fixation, seniority, promotion etc. and the arrears accrued thereupon may very kindly be ordered to be paid with interest of 9% per annum, in the interest of justice. b) That the office order dated 1.7.2015, Annexure P-2, may very kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent that the services of the petitioner as Lecturer (school Cadre) may be regularized from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 27-8-2009 with all consequential 3 benefits including seniority, promotion etc. in the interest of justice. c) That the respondents may very kindly be directed to issue fresh appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Lecturer (school Cadre) on regular basis instead of contract basis w.e.f. 27.8.2009, with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion etc. in the interest of justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner and the issues raised by him have already been considered and decided in State of H.P. and others Versus Ravinder Kumar2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner would be content in case the respondents are directed to consider his case in light of the aforesaid judgment within a fixed time schedule. Learned Additional Advocate General is not averse to this prayer. 5. In view of above, notwithstanding office order dated 01.07.2015 (Annexure P-2) qua the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law as well as taking into consideration the above judgment in the case of Ravinder Kumar2 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 LPA No.21 of 2013, decided alongwith connected matters on 4.10.2019 4 The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua November 13, 2025 Judge Mukesh