VED PRAKASH SHARMA S/O SH. UDHO RAM Versus RAKESH KANWAR AND ANR CMP-27367 of 2025 in COPC - 950 of 2025 29.12.2025 Present: Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the respondents-State. While placing on record communication dated nil enclosing therewith copy of office order dated 24.09.2025, issued by Director School Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, states that respondents, after having considered the case of the petitioner in terms of mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, have rejected the same for the reason that petitioner is not similarly situate to Sheela Devi’s case. Careful perusal of aforesaid documents, which are taken on record clearly suggests that respondents have complied with the mandate contained in the judgment, alleged to have been violated, as such, no action of the respondents can be said to be contumacious. In view of the above, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant proceedings and accordingy, the same are closed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in appropriate Court of law, laying therein challenge to order passed in purported compliance of the judgment, alleged to have been violated. December 29, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge