2026:HHC:3452 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 1661 of 2026 Decided on : 05.02.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Suraj Mohan ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and Others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Vacation Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. For the respondents: Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents-State. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj , Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. Keeping in view the order proposed to be passed in the present petition, no reply is called for from the respondents. 3. The precise grievance of the petitioner is that his case is not being considered for promotion to the post 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:3452 of Head Master, though, the representation made by him vide Annexure P-3 has already been forwarded by the Deputy Director of School Education (Elementary), Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. vide Annexure P-4. 4. Learned counsel submits that his case is covered by the decision passed by this Hon’ble Court in CWP No. 1751 of 2024, titled, Sanjeev Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others (Annexure P-5). 5. A perusal of the record reveals that the Deputy Director of School Education once having forwarded the representation to the Director of School Education and further the issue is covered by the dictum passed by this Court as mentioned above vide Annexure P-5, there is no impediment to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by respondent No. 2. 6. In view of the fact that since the petitioner has already made a representation and further the same having been forwarded by Deputy Director School Education (Elementary), Kangra at Dharmashala vide Annexure P-4 to respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the same within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order in light 3 2026:HHC:3452 of the decision passed vide Annexure P-5. It is made clear that in case the issue is covered by the judgment passed vide Annexure P-5, similar treatment be also given to the petitioner and the judgment referred above has been implemented by the respondents. 7. The present petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 05 th Februa ry , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Vriti) Vacation Judge