2026:HHC:18953 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3434 of 2023 Decided on: 21.05.2026 Jiwan Singh …….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. Rajinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 4. : Respondents No. 5 and 6 ex parte. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) CMP No. 4324 of 2026 For the reasons assigned, this application, seeking early hearing of the main petition, is allowed. CWP No. 3434 of 2023 2. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for consideration today itself. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by order Annexure P-12, dated 24.04.2023, in terms whereof, while allowing appeal of the petitioner filed against the selection of the private respondent as a Part Time Multi Task Worker in Government Middle School 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:18953 Shigarcha, Tehsil Nichar, District Kinnaur, the Authority directed the Selection Committee to re-advertise the post of Part Time Multi Task Worker in accordance with the provisions of the Policy. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that once the appeal of the petitioner against the appointment of private respondent-Sarla Devi was accepted, then the next in line should have been offered the post but this extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Authority while passing the order. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in the light of the fact that the Appellate Authority and that too in an appeal filed by the present petitioner, came to the conclusion that there were procedural lapses committed by the Selection Committee, the Appellate Authority rightly ordered the re- advertisement of the post in issue and this order does not prejudice the petitioner because he can again participate in the process, if he is otherwise eligible. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 7. It was in an appeal preferred by the present petitioner that the appointment of the private respondent was set aside by the 3 2026:HHC:18953 learned Appellate Authority by assigning the reasons mentioned therein. As there is no challenge to the order by the selected candidate, this Court is not going into the merit of the adjudication made by the Appellate Authority. 8. Fact of the matter is that once the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there were procedural lapses, it was the discretion of the Appellate Authority whether to order re- advertisement of the post or to order offer of the post to the next in line. This discretion stands exercised by the Appellate Authority by ordering that the Selection Committee shall re-advertise the post of the Part Time Multi Task Worker. It is not the case of the petitioner that no such discretion was vested in the Authority. Therefore, in its power of judicial review, as this Court sees no illegality in exercise of discretion by the Appellate Authority in ordering the re- advertisement of the post, the petition is dismissed as this Court concurs with the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the re-advertisement of the post does not prejudice the petitioner as he can also participate in the process alongwith other candidates. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 21, 2026 (narender)