Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19270 (HP)

TARO DEVI v. THE STATE OF HP

CWP/12260/2026 · 2026-08-20

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 12260 of 2026 Decided on 20th August, 2026 Taro Devi …Petitioner Versus State of HP and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Ms. Salochna Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. M/s Aditya Thakur & Ritika Thakur, Advocates, for respondent No.6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 has taken preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. He has appraised the Court that in the present case, the appointment of the petitioner was made under the 2007 Policy. By referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in 2 CWP No. 1096 of 2010, titled Raksha Devi Vs. State of HP and others and batch matters, decided on 17th May 2010, which also included CWP 1463 of 2009, which petition was filed by the present petitioner, he submitted that in terms of said judgment, the appointments, which are made under the 2007 Policy, were assailable by way of a first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and a person aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner had a remedy by way of a second appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. He submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to reiterate that a person, who is aggrieved by an appointment under the 2007 Policy has to follow this channel. He submitted that despite this the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner without availing the remedy of second appeal. 2. Faced with this situation, Ms. Salochna Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be allowed to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file the second appeal. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn, with liberty, as prayed, subject to all just 3 exceptions. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 20, 2026 (Guleria)