Dismissed¶17

Anil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC15 Sept 2025CWP/14860/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of writ petition for want of relevant pleadings; liberty to file fresh petition; dismissal as withdrawn; office order dated 30.08.2025 rejecting representation; contract appointment as Shastri on 14.09.2021 per Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission recommendations; R&P Rules for post of Shastri dated 27.05.2010 and 27.08.2012; CWP No.14860 of 2025; earlier CWP No.72505 of 2024 decided 03.01.2025; High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla; Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition, in accordance with law, after incorporating proper pleadings and grounds for challenge; pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of. ¶17

Anil Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the office order dated 30.08.2025, rejecting the petitioner's representation regarding his contractual appointment as Shastri, could be assailed in the present writ petition. +1 more

¶8

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition did not contain any relevant pleadings for assailing the reasoning of the impugned order; learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to withdraw it with liberty to file a fresh petition, in accordance with law, after incorporating proper pleadings and grounds for challenge.

¶16

Key takeaways

Granting such permission, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.ratio¶17
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anil Kumar v. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No.14860 of 2025, High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, decided 15.09.2025, Jyotsna Rewal Dua J): The petitioner sought to assail an office order dated 30.08.2025 by which the respondents rejected his representation — made pursuant to the directions in Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of H.P. and Ors, CWP No.72505 of 2024 (decided 03.01.2025) — on grounds including his appointment as Shastri on contract basis on 14.09.2021 per Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission recommendations, in terms of the applicable R&P Rules for the post of Shastri dated 27.05.2010 and 27.08.2012 containing a contract-appointment provision. Observing that the writ petition contained no relevant pleadings for assailing the reasoning of the impugned order, the Court permitted withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh petition with proper pleadings and grounds, dismissed the petition as withdrawn, and disposed of pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. The merits of the challenge were not decided.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.14860 of 2025 Decided on: 15.09.2025

¶3

_________________________________________________________________ Anil Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors . …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_

¶4

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

_________________________ For the petitioner:	________________________________________ Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

Petitioner seeks to assail office order dated

¶9

30.08.2025 passed by the respondents, whereby pursuant to

¶10

the directions issued in Anil Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of

¶11

H.P. and Ors² , his representation was rejected, inter-alia, on the grounds that petitioner was appointed as Shastri on contract basis on 14.09.2021 as per the recommendations of the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission and that

¶12

petitioner’s appointment on contract basis was in terms of

¶13

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 CWP No.72505 of 2024, decided on 03.01.2025

¶14

¶15

applicable R&P Rules for the post of Shastri dated 27.05.2010 and 27.08.2012, wherein provision for contract appointment had been incorporated.

¶16

2. Since the writ petition does not contain any relevant pleadings for assailing the aforesaid reasoning of the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file fresh petition, in accordance with law, after incorporating proper pleadings and grounds for challenge.

¶17

3. Granting such permission, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶18

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also

¶19

to stand disposed of.

¶20

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶21

September 15, 2025 rohit

Anil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surinder Kumar Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Mahender Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sonika Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kishori Lal Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pushpa Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Bhim Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others