IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 16231 of 2026. Decided on : 17 th September , 2026 Amarjeet Kaur ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. The writ petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to decide a representation of the petitioner. Relevant facts are not discernable from the pleadings. It appears that a candidate had been selected on the post of Part-Time Multi Task Worker in a selection process in which petitioner had also participated. The selected candidate had joined on the post pursuant to the selection. Petitioner alleges that said candidate has passed away, though no specific details in that regard have been mentioned in the petition. 2. The petitioner stakes her claim for being appointed on the post allegedly having become vacant due to demise of the selected candidate on the strength of Clause 18 of Multi Task Worker Policy. The 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Policy is also not on record. Whether the respondents have initiated the selection process afresh is also not apparent from the petition. There is absolute lack of necessary pleadings. In fact, during hearing of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had previously also filed a writ petition that was withdrawn on account of defective pleadings. Even that has also not been factored in this writ petition. Rather, the petition states that no other similar petition had been filed by the petitioner. 3. In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed in its present form, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate writ petition after incorporating relevant pleadings and documents. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 17th September, 2026. (jai)