IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.443 of 2025 Date of Decision: 23.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Rajnish Kumar …….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. Kunal Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: .Mr. Rajan Kahol and Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main relief:- “ To issue writ in the nature of mandamus with a direction to respondents to consider entire experience for further promotions rendered in the Army Education Corps as Instructor AEC special w.e.f. as enrolled in the Army Education Corps i.e. dated 22.03.2003. As the office memo dated 09 Dec.1999 as issued by the State Government which itself equates the trade instructor AEC special as discharge book & teaching experience certificates showing which is equivalent to the post of TGT in the school in the civil post.” 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Though, by way of filing reply to the petition, afore prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has been seriously refuted by the respondents, but learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to judgment dated 28.08.2020 passed by this Court in CWP No. 2678 of 2019, titled Kamlesh Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another, states that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant petition already stands adjudicated by this Court in afore judgment and as such, petitioner would be content and satisfied in case direction are issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court. 3. Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, after having perused the judgment passed in Kamlesh Chand’s case (supra), fairly states that he shall have no objection to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Having carefully perused the averments contained in the petition, which is duly supported by an affidavit vis-à-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court is persuaded to agreed with learned counsel for the petitioner that issue otherwise sought to be decided in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by this Court in Kamlesh Chand case(supra) and as such, no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case directions are 3 issued to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of aforesaid judgment. 5. Consequently, In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Needless to say, in the event of petitioner’s being found similar situate to the Kamlesh Chand case (supra), he shall be granted similar benefits expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 23,2025 (shankar)