IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 526 of 2026 Decided on : 17.09.2026 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma ... Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) After arguing for some time, since the issue of whether there are three posts of Assistant Professors or two, was sought to be controverted against what has been held by the learned Single Judge, who had called for the record and also examined the roster in use. The Sr. Counsel has placed reliance upon an order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 5th December, 2024 passed in CWPIL No. 12 of 2014 titled Ajay Sipahiya and others vs. State of H.P and others to submit that the third post of Assistant Professor (ENT) was created in the Trauma Centre of IGMC and not in the Department of ENT. 2. He has referred to the rejoinder filed by the writ petitioner to submit that it is the specific case that Dr. Payal Gupta, who was promoted 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- on 28th June, 2022, belonged to the Trauma Centre. It is thus submitted that this controverted the specific stand taken by the State in paragraph 4 that an additional post had been sanctioned on 18th April, 2022 of Assistant Professor, and Dr. Payal Gupta had been promoted as such on the newly created post. 3. Since the learned Single Judge had called for the record and examined the same and the order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 5th December, 2024, which is now being relied upon, was not before the learned Single Judge, Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present appeal and bring the said facts to the notice of the learned Single Judge by filing an appropriate application. 4. Resultantly, we allow the appellant to withdraw the present appeal. Needless to say, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or the findings recorded in the judgment which is now sought to be challenged. In case, the appellant is not successful before the learned Single Judge in the review petition, it will always be open to him to file a fresh Letters Patent Appeal, and the decision of the review petition shall give a fresh course of action. 5. The appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 17th September, 2026 (Tarun Singh)