2025:HHC:6296 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3613 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.03.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Lekh Raj ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar & Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Learned counsel representing the petitioner, on instructions, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case a direction is issued to the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-11) in a time bound manner. 2. While putting in appearance on behalf of respondents, Mr. B.C.Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly states that representation, if any, filed b9y the petitioner shall be considered and decided expeditiously. 3. Consequently, in view of above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to consider and decide the pending representation (Annexure P-11) filed by the petitioner, 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 being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate order. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. March 17, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (sunil) Judge 2