2025:HHC:39509 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.4319 of 2020 Decided on: 17.11.2025 _________________________________________________________ Madan Gopal ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] The petitioner, Madan Gopal, had initially filed O.A. No.2094 of 2018 before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Upon abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was registered as CWPOA No.4319 of 2020, wherein the petitioner has sought the following relief(s): (i). That the Respondents may be directed to immediately consider the representation Annexure A-1 in a time bound manner. (ii). That Respondent no.3 may be directed to take a decision on the case of the applicant for re-engagement which is pending with the said Authority since the year 2012. (iii). In the alternative the Respondents especially Respondent No.4 may immediately be 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:39509 - 2 - directed to re-engage the services of the Applicant as Lecturer History with full consequential benefits from the illegal date of retrenchment.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Lecturer in History on PTA on 07.09.2006 in Government Senior Secondary School, Paragpur, District Kangra, after due recommendation by the Selection Committee. It is averred that on 10.03.2008, the services of the petitioner were disengaged without any reason. It is further averred that in the year 2012, the petitioner submitted a representation on 15.05.2017 [Annexure A-1], but nothing has been done in the matter till day. In this background, the petitioner has prayed for his re-engagement as a Lecturer in History on PTA basis with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to issuance of notice respondent No.3 has filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 12.07.2022 with the stand that the representation [Annexure A-1], dated 15.05.2017 was not received by the aforesaid respondent. In Para 6(b) of the Reply-Affidavit it is stated that the Government had issued Instructions on 2025:HHC:39509 - 3 - 19.02.2013 to re-engage the PTA provided teachers under GIA to PTA Rules 2006, whose services were discontinued due to new appointment or by way of transfer. 4. Heard Mr. Nitin Thakur, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents and have gone through the case records. ANALYSIS: 5. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy coupled with the fact that the first claim of petitioner is to direct the Respondents to consider his representation [Annexure A-1] dated 15.05.2017, but once the Official Respondent No.3 had denied the receipt of representation [Annexure A-1] therefore, the prayer in Clause 7(a), cannot be granted to the petitioner. 6. So far as the second claim of the petitioner made in Para 7(b) and (c) seeking re-engagement as Lecturer in History on PTA is concerned, this Court is unable to accede to prayer for the reason, that the prayer for re-engagement has been made but without laying a challenge to his dis-engagement ordered on 10.03.2008. 2025:HHC:39509 - 4 - Even, the petitioner has not placed anything on record to show as to whether he has availed the remedy of asserting his claim before the competent authority as per the Instructions dated 19.02.2013 [as in Reply-Affidavit and Para 3 of this Judgment and the outcome thereof]. Non furnishing of material particulars disentitles the petitioner for relief of re-engagement in these proceedings. 6. Faced with the above eventuality, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, on instructions of petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied, in case, he is permitted to make a fresh representation to the Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education [now Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh] within a reasonable period for ventilating his grievances. [Statement Taken on Record]. 7. Prayer made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, being innocuous is not opposed by the Learned State Counsel except by taking all permissible pleas. DIRECTIONS: 8. In the above backdrop and for reasons 2025:HHC:39509 - 5 - recorded hereinabove and based on the Statement made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner and by leaving all question open, the instant petition is disposed of, in the following terms: (i). As prayed, petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation ventilating his grievances to Respondent No.2-Director of Higher Education [now Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh] within four weeks from today; (ii). Upon receipt of the representation, aforesaid respondent/competent authority shall examine the representation and pass an appropriate order(s) in the matter in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter; (iii). Needless to say that this Court has not adverted to the rival claims/contentions; which are left to be examined independently hereinafter in accordance with law; (iv). Claim for re-engagement, without assailing termination dated 10.03.1998 is disallowed [except for permitted action as in direction Nos.(i) & (ii) above; (v). Parties to bear respective costs. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of along with pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge November 17, 2025 [Shivender]