2026:HHC:17561 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7763 of 2026 Decided on : 18.05.2026 Narender Kumar and another …Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Roop Lal Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Chander Shekhar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Komal Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That writ of mandamus may kindly be issued, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:17561 directing the respondent authorities to conduct the written test and screening thereto qua the post of TGT (Hindi) and TGT (Sanskrit) for deploying them in CBSE affiliated schools in Himachal Pradesh, within a time bound manner, in view of the fact that the name of the posts of the petitioners i.e. TGT (Hindi) and TGT (Sanskrit) were not available on the portal of the respondent Board for submitting online applications, SO that the petitioners may also get chance to serve in CBSE affiliated schools.” 2. Learned Advocate General has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. He submitted that previously, the present petitioners had approached this Court by way of CWP No.2501 of 2026 and despite the fact that the cause which is being agitated by the petitioners in the present writ petition, was there as on the date when the earlier writ petition was filed, same was neither pleaded therein nor any relief was sought with regard thereto in the said writ petition. Learned Advocate General thus submitted that the present petition is hit by the provision of Order II, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CPC’). 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though these issues were not raised 3 2026:HHC:17561 in the main writ petition, but after the reply to the earlier writ was filed by the State, all these issues were raised in the rejoinder. 4. To this, learned Advocate General submitted that nothing prevented the petitioners from amending the writ petition or seeking liberty of the Court to agitate said issues by way of a fresh writ petition and now in light of the fact that the earlier writ petition, filed by the petitioners, stands disposed of by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, in terms of judgment dated 29.04.2026, passed in CWP No. 2501 of 2026, titled Narender Kumar & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & Ors., the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Advocate General, this Court is of the considered view that there is merit in the preliminary objection taken by the learned Advocate General. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner that the issue raised herein, is a result of subsequent cause, which accrued in favour of the petitioners, after the filing of earlier writ petition. That being so, obviously, the petitioners should have included 4 2026:HHC:17561 all the reliefs, to which they were entitled to, in the earlier writ petition or should have had sought leave of the Hon’ble Division Bench to agitate the issues independently, by way of a fresh petition. 7. Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC provides that every suit shall include the whole of the claim to which the plaintiff is entitled to in respect of the cause of action; but a plaintiff may relinquish any portion of his claim to bring it within the jurisdiction of a Court. Sub-Rule (2) thereof provides that where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of or intentionally relinquishes any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished. Sub-Rule (3) thereof provides that a person entitled to more than one relief in respect of the same cause of action, may sue for all or any of such reliefs; but if he omits, except with the leave of the Court to sue for all such reliefs, he shall not afterwards sue for any relief, so omitted. 8. The present petition is thus squarely hit by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 (3) of the CPC. Herein, as the reliefs being prayed for in the present petition, are arising from 5 2026:HHC:17561 the same cause of action, with which the petitioners had approached the Court earlier, omission on the part of the petitioners not to have claimed the reliefs claimed herein in the earlier petition, is fatal. They should have sought the leave of the Court to file an independent petition for the said reliefs lateron, but no such leave was sought from the Court. Further, nothing prevented the petitioners from amending the petition before the disposal thereof qua the reliefs prayed in the present petition also, but this was also not done. 9. Thus, in light of the fact that despite cause being there at the time when the earlier writ petition was filed by the petitioners qua the present reliefs claimed in this petition, yet the petitioners chose not to include said reliefs in the earlier petition, this petition is hit by the provisions of Order II, Rule 2 of the CPC and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 18, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)