Dismissed

Vishal Sandhu v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/15662/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenged the screening committee’s decision not to award the petitioner marks for experience despite his experience certificate and the recruitment notice. The petitioner sought to place further documents on record, but stated that this could not be done in the petition in its present form. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.

Vishal Sandhu Vs the State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 15662 of 2026 Decided on: 21.09.2026

¶3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vishal Sandhu …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General.

¶10

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶11

Following order was passed in the matter on

¶12

10.09.2026: -

¶13

“Notice at this stage confined to respondents No.1 to 5, which is waived by Mr. L.N. Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General.

¶14

Petitioner contends that even though he was entitled to marks for experience in terms of recruitment notice at Annexure P-1 in view of certificate dated 05.12.2023 (appended at page 28 of the paper book), however, the screening committee did not give him any marks for his experience, as would be evident from Annexure P-5.

¶15

Before notice is issued to other respondents, let learned Additional Advocate General have instructions in the matter as to why the petitioner has not been issued marks for his experience certificate.

¶16

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶17

¶18

List during the week commencing from 21.09.2026. Reply, if any, be also filed in the meanwhile.”

¶19

Reply to the petition is stated to have been filed.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in

¶21

view of the reply, there is necessity for the petitioner to place on record certain documents, which would have bearing on the redressal of the grievance raised by the petitioner, however, the same cannot be done in the present petition in its present form. Therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the instant petition with liberty to file afresh.

¶22

In view of above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶23

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶24

21^st September, 2026 rohit

Vishal Sandhu v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Sandhu v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases