IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17659 of 2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 _______________________________________________________ Keshav Singh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondent- State. Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “(i) That the writ of certiorari may be kindly issued by quashing advertisement dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P- 4); (ii) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent No.3 to advertised the fresh advertisement to the post(s) of Assistant Professor(s) (Trainee) in Baba Balak Nath College, Chakmoh, District Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh by following the reservation roster mandated by the Constitution of India and other statutory provisions of the State.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record representation dated 15.10.2025 made by him to the various authorities, praying therein for redressal of his grievance, as has been raised in the instant petition. He states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the pending representation expeditiously, in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Bhupinder Pathania, Advocate representing the respondents fairly state that they are not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Since it is not in dispute that pursuant to the advertisement otherwise sought to be stayed in the instant proceedings, selection process is on and petitioner has also filed an application for the post of Assistant Professor, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 15.10.2025, stated to have been submitted to the authorities by way of email, within a period of one week from today. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being head to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. 5. To avoid further delay, this Court directs learned Deputy Advocate General to make available copy of the instant order to respondent No. 3 today itself and thereafter, petitioner would cause his presence before 3 the authority concerned on 15.11.2025, enabling afore authority to do the needful within stipulated time. Liberty is reserved to be petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court, if he still remains aggrieved. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge November 13, 2025 (shankar)