MANISH KUMAR Aged about , 25 years, Son of , Sh. Vijay Kumar v. THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS
CWP/4203/2026 · 2026-04-16
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3042 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 3042 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
CWP No. 4203/2026
Decided on: 16.04.2026
Manish Kumar
…Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors.
.…Respondents ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner:
Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 to 4.
Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for
respondent No.6.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
This writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge the decision communicated by respondent No.5–Executive Engineer, Personnel Division No.1, RSD–Shahpurkhand Township, in office communication dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-6), holding that the petitioner is not entitled to employment under the dam oustee quota, since only one member per family could be given a job under the said quota and petitioner’s father had already been granted employment under the dam oustee quota.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2
2.
To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the fact that petitioner’s father was indeed offered employment under the dam oustee quota, which he had accepted, and after serving with the respondents, he also retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner’s father incidentally is not even impleaded as a party to the petition.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any reason for not assailing the decision as communicated in the impugned communication dated 18.12.2023 within a reasonable period, or as to why petitioner’s father, at the relevant time, did not resort to the appropriate recourse in law for securing employment for his son (the present petitioner). Petitioner’s father incidentally is not even impleaded as a party to the petition.
4.
Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh, in accordance with law.
Granting such permission, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Jyotsna Rewal Dua
Judge 16th April, 2026(rohit)