2026:HHC:14901 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7168 of 2023 Decided on: 06.05.2026 Jagat Ram …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 7. : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 8. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the appointment of the private respondent against the post of Part Time Multi Task worker in Government Primary School Pab-II, District Sirmaur as also against the orders passed by Appellate Authority(s) in the appeals preferred by the present petitioner. The challenge to the appointment of the private respondent was primarily on the ground that the BPL certificate was obtained by him by concealing material facts. 2. Today, the Court has been informed that in fact the BPL 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14901 certificate of the private respondent was enquired into and the same has been cancelled, as is evident from Annexure R-3/1, i.e. order passed by the Authority concerned. This factual position has not been disputed by learned Counsel for the private respondent also. 3. In light of this fact, as obviously, the cancellation of the BPL certificate entails the cancellation of the appointment order of the private respondent also, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the appointment of the private respondent against the post in issue as well as the orders passed by the Appellate Authorities in the appeals preferred by the present petitioner, in terms of the prayer made in the writ petition. 4. At this stage, learned Counsel for the private respondent submits that the private respondent be granted liberty to assail the order of cancellation of his BPL certificate in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that this right has already been availed by the private respondent. 5. Be that as it may, it is observed that in case the respondent has not yet availed any remedy against the order passed by the Authority cancelling the BPL certificate, then the private respondent can avail such remedy, of course, subject to all just exceptions, including the limitation period but this liberty shall not confer any fresh right upon the private respondent to assail the 3 2026:HHC:14901 order if the private respondent has previously assailed the same unsuccessfully. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 06, 2026 (narender)