2026:HHC:22954 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.9045 of 2026 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Kritika Verma … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner on parity with Ms. Anju Bala. b) Direct the respondent to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of TGT under PwD category. c) Direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to join services forthwith.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a person with benchmark disability (45% hearing impairment). According to her, on the recommendations of Special Selection Committee, she was selected for appointment against the post of TGT (Non-Medical) under PwD Category vide order dated 07.07.2013 (Annexure P-9). In 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:22954 terms of the selection order, the petitioner was required to undergo a fresh medical examination and therefore, she was directed to appear before the State Medical Examination Board at Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital, Shimla on 11.07.2023. According to her, she complied with the directions and applied for fresh medical examination on 12.07.2023, however, Medical Certificate was not issued in her favour in time and was ultimately issued only on 20.02.2026 due to administrative delay. It is her case that on account of delay in issuing said Medical Certificate, she was not issued the appointment letter despite being duly selected. It is further her case that one similarly situated person, namely, Ms. Anju Bala, was also initially denied appointment on the ground that she had not submitted a fresh Medical Certificate, but subsequently, she was offered appointment when she submitted a fresh Medical Certificate on 30.08.2024 and appointment was offered to her on 03.12.2024. According to the petitioner, as her case is similar to Ms. Anju Bala, therefore, she is seeking a mandamus to the respondents to consider her case at par with Ms. Anju Bala and offer her appointment against the post in issue. 4. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that no relief, as is being prayed for, can be granted to the petitioner. 5. There is nothing on record, from which it can be inferred that after the petitioner appeared before the Medical Examination 3 2026:HHC:22954 Board pursuant to Annexure P-9, on the date concerned, she ever approached either the employer or the hospital concerned for the issuance of the certificate. It was only in the year 2026 that it appears that the petitioner approached for the issuance of a fresh Medical Certificate and a fresh Medical Certificate was indeed issued in her favour by the Office of Chief Medical Officer on 20.02.2026. 6. In the absence of there being any material on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was diligently pursuing either with the employer or with the hospital concerned/Medical Board for issuance of a Medical Certificate, she cannot now be ordered to be offered a post on the strength of Annexure P-13, i.e. Medical Certificate dated 20.02.2026, with regard to the offer which was made to her as far back as on 07.07.2023 at par with others. 7. As far as reliance placed on the case of Ms. Anju Bala is concerned, the averments made in the petition itself demonstrate that she was issued a Medical Certificate on 30.08.2024 and it was thereafter, that she was offered appointment on 03.12.2024. However, in the case of petitioner, unfortunately she did not approach the Medical Board for issuance of Certificate either in the year 2023, in the year 2024, or in the year 2025. It was only in the month of February, 2026 that said Certificate was obtained by her and in this factual backdrop, premium cannot be given to the omission on the part of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by observing 4 2026:HHC:22954 that if a post qua the process for which the petitioner was selected is lying vacant, then the respondents may consider her case for appointment on the strength of Annexure P-13, but then the said consideration shall be prospective for all intents and purposes. Meaning thereby, that in case any appointment is offered to the petitioner, it will be prospective only and neither she will be entitled to seniority from the date when persons, who were recommended alongwith her were appointed, nor she will claim any other benefit. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 18, 2026 (Rishi)