2026:HHC:6175 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 676 of 2014 Decided on : 07.03.2026 Sh. Rakesh Kumar …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 : M/s Surinder Kumar Saklani, Arun Kumar and Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate, with M/s Tek Chand and Tarun Garla, Advocates, for respondent No.6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “a. That the order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the Ld. Addl Deputy Commissioner mandi /Chairman Inquiry 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6175 Committee may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to release the grant in aid to the petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be treated at par with the other PTA Lecturers.” 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the act of the respondents prima facie is bad in law for the reason that when in compliance to the judgments passed by this Court, the matter of re-assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates was under taken by the Committee, rather than adopting the criteria, which was adopted at the first instance to determine the merit of the candidates, the Committee formulated a new criteria to judge the suitability of the candidates, which renders the process to be bad in law. 3. In the light of the fact that the writ petition pertains to there 2014, a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is unemployed or not, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is now serving as Lecturer (School Cadre), but according to him the cause agitated in the petition is still alive. 4. This Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the petitioner is now appointed as a Lecturer 3 2026:HHC:6175 (School Cadre) on regular basis, this petition has lost its efficacy. Even otherwise, in a connected matter i.e. CWP No. 715 of 2014, titled Dhirender Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors., this Court has otherwise rejected the prayer of the private respondent herein for re-engagement. Therefore, these proceedings are closed, in light of the subsequent development, without adjudication on merits of the case. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 07, 2026 (Shivank Thakur)