IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16717 of 2024 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rattan Chand & another …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivansh Dhiman & Mr. Yug Singhal, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioners have prayed for following main reliefs:- “a) That the respondent No.3 may kindly be directed to recommend the name of the petitioners for the post of PGT/Lecturer Hindi(General Category) ex-serviceman, as total requisitioned post of Lecturer/PGT Ex-Serviceman general category by the department was twenty two and qua this only eighteen person name has been recommended by the respondent No.3; b. That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider representation (Annexure P-6) of the petitioner in time bound manner.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, vide order dated 01.01.2025, this Court had directed the respondents to file reply, but fact remains that more than 11 months have passed, but till date no reply has been filed. At this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners would be contend and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide pending representation dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-6), in a time bound manner. 3. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while putting appearance on behalf of the respondents, fairly states that the representation, if not already decided, shall be decided expeditiously. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court without going into the merits of the case deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation dated 29.10.2024 (Annexure P-6) of the petitioners expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a speaking order thereupon. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to file appropriate proceedings in 3 appropriate court of law, if they still remain aggrieved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 23, 2025 (shankar)