IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.449 of 2026 Date of Decision: 6.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Kewal Ram ……...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Onkar Jairath and Mr. Himanshu Thakur, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs “i. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to continue filling the posts of Forest Guard from Class-IV employees under the 10% quota strictly in accordance with the procedure hitherto followed; ii. Quash and set aside Annexure P-2 following any decision action or proposal of the respondents seeking to change the said procedure without framing proper rules and without safeguarding the interests of Headquarters petitioner class-IV employee; iii. Direct the respondents to decide the representation Annexure P-3 submitted by the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time-bound period.” - 2 - 2. Before reply, if any, could be called for from the respondents, Mr. Onkar Jairath, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, states that petitioner would be content and satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation (Annexure P-1) in time bound manner. 3. While putting in appearance on behalf of the respondent- State, Mr. Anup Rattan, learned Advocate General, states that he is not averse to aforesaid innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say, authority concerned, while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 6, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge