( 2026:HHC:8048 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 175 of 2026 in LPA No.148 of 2026 Decided on : 18.03.2026 Kanta Devi ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi and Ms. Bhavinta Kumari, Advocates. For the respondent(s): Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 175 of 2026 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 106 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. LPA No. 148 of 2026 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- No. 1357 of 2022, titled Kanta Devi vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 18.09.2025, whereby no relief, as such, has been granted to the petitioner, keeping in view the pleadings that the petitioner was only appointed as a part-time sweeper by the then PTA and that there is no sanctioned post of Sweeper. 2. Respondent No. 5 (Parent Teacher Association Government Senior Secondary School, Nanhar, P.O. Chambi, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.) appointed the petitioner as a Sweeper against a vacant post and thus, there appears to be no justification to direct the respondents to regularize the petitioner against the post of Sweeper. 3. Findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner was engaged by the School Management Committee/PTA in the year 2010, and now, on account of the availability of a regular peon, there is no requirement of a Sweeper. Thus, no direction was issued to the School Management Committee to re-engage the petitioner. 4. It has also been noticed that, on the strength of the students increasing in the next academic session, the School Management Committee was to re-consider the decision to re- engage the petitioner, keeping in view the fact that she has already -3- rendered more than ten years of service on a part-time basis in the school in question. 5. A perusal of the writ petition filed shows that the prayer, as such, was, for re-engaging in the relief clause, apart from a prayer for regularization, and also for conversion of service from sweeper to a part-time water carrier in the said school, but also, in the alternative, for appointment as a Multi-Task Worker on account of her service. 6. It is further crystal clear from the recommendation letter dated 28th August, 2019 that the employment, as such, of the petitioner was by the PTA from the year 2010 till date, and that the payment was made from the pockets of the parents of the students, and therefore, some recommendations were made to create the post of water carrier in the school. 7. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner, not being an employee of the State, as such, has no legal vested right, to seek the relief made in the writ petition, and it is only by way of concession by the learned Single Judge that the petition was disposed of with the observation that she may be adjusted by the PTA in case there is an increase in strength. 8. The case, as sought to be made out, is that the appointment was by the competent authorities. However, in the -4- present case, the employment was by the Parents Teacher Association only, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the writ was also not maintainable in the given facts and circumstances. 9. In view of the above, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (BipinChanderNegi) Judge 18thMarch, 2026 (Tarun)