Disposed

Sudesh Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/16441/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the alleged differential treatment of Special Educators regarding batchwise recruitment benefits, which had been extended to certain other teaching posts but not incorporated in the Special Educator Rules. The respondents had no objection to the petitioner seeking consideration of a representation. The Court directed the competent authority to consider and decide that representation in accordance with law within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The respondents/competent authority were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation in accordance with law within four weeks, and communicate the order to the petitioner.

Sudesh Kumari Vs State of Hp and Others — Service and Employment | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 16441/2026 Decided on: 21.09.2026

¶3

Sudesh Kumari …..Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the petitioner: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Choudhary, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2.

¶7

Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶8

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

¶9

Mr. Rajat Choudhary, learned Assistant Advocate

¶10

General and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and 3, respectively.

¶11

Petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have extended the benefit of recruitment on batchwise basis to the extent of 45% for the post of Junior Basic Trained Teacher (Annexure P-5), 32.5% for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Annexure P-6) and 45% for the post of Drawing Master (Annexure P-7) under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules governing the posts in question.

¶12

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶13

¶14

However, the said benefit has not been incorporated in the Rules governing the post of Special Educator, to which the petitioners belong. According to the petitioners, this differential treatment in providing recruitment on batchwise basis under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules applicable to the aforesaid categories of posts vis-avis the Rules applicable to the post of Special Educator is arbitrary. The petitioners also contend that such classification is not founded on any intelligible differentia and bears no rational nexus whatsoever with the object sought to be achieved.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have already preferred a representation (Annexure P-9) seeking incorporation of 50% batchwise recruitment in the applicable Rules for the post of Special Educator. However, the said representation has not been considered and decided till date. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners would be content if the respondent/competent authority is directed to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners in accordance with law, within a time-bound manner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to the said prayer.

¶16

Looking to the limited grievance of the petitioners, the instant petition is disposed of by directing respondents/competent authority to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from

¶17

¶18

today. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioners.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed

¶20

of.

¶21

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 21^st September, 2026(rohit)

Sudesh Kumari v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudesh Kumari v. 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