IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.647 of 2025 Date of Decision: 03.07.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Abhay Sharma ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. B.C Verma & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent No. 3-HPPSC. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent No. 5-HP University. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 4 & 6. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) CMP No. 11387 of 2025 By way of instant application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC r/w Section 151 CPC, prayer has been made on behalf of applicant/petitioner for impleadment of UGC, HP University and IGNOU as party respondents. 2. No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of non- applicants/respondents as proposed respondents as proposed respondents are already represented in connected matters. 3. Having perused the averments contained in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, this Court finds that impleadment of UGC, HP University and IGNOU as party respondents is necessary for proper adjudication of the case at hand. No prejudice shall be caused to either of the parties in case prayer made in the application is allowed. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, the application is allowed and the proposed respondents i.e. UGC, HP University and IGNOU are ordered to be impleaded as respondents No. 4 to 6. Registry to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties on the basis of amended memo of parties to be filed by learned counsel for the petitioner within one week. Application stands disposed of. CWP No.647 of 2025 5. Notice to newly impleaded respondents No. 4 to 6. Mr. Prashant Sharma and Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocates, appear and accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 4, respondent No. 6 and respondents No. 5, respectively. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:- “(a) That the writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued and the notification dated 02.01.2025 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner illegible. (b) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to 2 appear in the documentation process, which is going to be taken by the respondent No. 3 by considering the candidature of the petitioner.” 6. Pursuant to notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondent No. 3 has filed reply, whereas reply of respondent No. 1 is still awaited. Before the case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merit, learned counsel representing the petitioner, respondent- HPPSC and respondent-University fairly state that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 610 of 2025, titled as Kavita Sharma Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 05.06.2025. 7. Since respondents No. 1 & 2 have no role to play in the matter, rather steps, if any, for redressal of grievance are to be taken by respondents No. 3 & 5, no reply is required from respondent No. 1, 2 & 4 and no notice is required to be issued to respondents No. 6. 8. Having perused averments contained in the petition, which are duly supported by an affidavit, vis-a-vis judgment sought to be relied upon, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Nitin Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, that issue raised in the instant proceedings already stands adjudicated by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kavita Sharma (supra) and as such, no prejudice would be 3 caused to either of the parties, if the respondents No. 3 & 4 are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in light of judgment supra. 9. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents No. 3 & 4 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure P-7) in light of Kavita Sharma (supra), expeditiously, preferably within a period of one week. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order taking note of findings as well as observation made in Kavita Sharma (supra). In case, petitioner is found to be similarly situate to the petitioner in the aforesaid judgment, he would be extended similar benefits. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. July 03, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 4