Dismissed¶20

Manish Kumar Aged about , 25 years, Son of , Sh. Vijay Kumar, v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Apr 2026CWP/4203/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dam oustee quota employment; one job per family condition; father already employed under dam oustee quota and retired on superannuation; impugned communication dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) by Executive Engineer, Personnel Division No.1, RSD–Shahpurkhand Township; delay in challenging decision; father not impleaded; permission to withdraw with liberty to file afresh; petition dismissed as withdrawn; miscellaneous applications disposed; CWP No. 4203/2026; High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua; decided 16.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law; petition dismissed as withdrawn and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of. ¶20

Manish Kumar Aged about , 25 years, Son of , Sh. Vijay Kumar, Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission granted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law; petition dismissed as withdrawn and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, disposed of.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to employment under the dam oustee quota despite his father having already been granted employment under that quota, given the condition that only one member per family could be given a job under the quota. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

On a query from the Court, counsel for the petitioner did not dispute that the petitioner's father was offered employment under the dam oustee quota, accepted it, served the respondents and retired on attaining the age of superannuation; the father was incidentally not impleaded as a party to the petition.

¶17

Key takeaways

Counsel for the petitioner could not give any reason for the delay in assailing the impugned communication dated 18.12.2023, nor explain why the petitioner's father did not resort to appropriate legal recourse at the relevant time; the father was not impleaded as a party to the petition.obiter¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (CWP No. 4203/2026, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, decided 16.04.2026) by Manish Kumar challenging the office communication dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-6) of respondent No.5 – Executive Engineer, Personnel Division No.1, RSD–Shahpurkhand Township, denying him employment under the dam oustee quota on the ground that only one member per family could be given a job under the quota and his father had already been granted employment under it. Before the Court, counsel did not dispute that the father had accepted the quota employment, served and retired on superannuation, and could not explain the delay in challenging the communication or the father's non-joinder as a party. Confronted with this, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh in accordance with law; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn and pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. No issue was adjudicated on merits.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 4203/2026 Decided on: 16.04.2026

¶3

Manish Kumar …Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents

¶6

Coram

¶7

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶10

Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for respondent No.6.

¶11

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking to challenge

¶13

the decision communicated by respondent No.5–Executive Engineer, Personnel Division No.1, RSD–Shahpurkhand Township, in office communication dated 18.12.2023 (Annexure P-6), holding that the petitioner is not entitled to employment under the dam oustee quota, since only one member per family could be given a job under the said quota and petitioner’s father had already been granted employment under the dam oustee quota.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

To a query of the Court, learned counsel for the

¶17

petitioner did not dispute the fact that petitioner’s father was indeed offered employment under the dam oustee quota, which he had accepted, and after serving with the respondents, he also retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Petitioner’s father incidentally is not even impleaded as a party to the petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any reason for not assailing the decision as communicated in the impugned communication dated 18.12.2023 within a reasonable period, or as to why petitioner’s father, at the relevant time, did not resort to the appropriate recourse in law for securing employment for his son (the present petitioner). Petitioner’s father incidentally is not even impleaded as a party to the petition.

¶19

Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file afresh, in accordance with law.

¶20

Granting such permission, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶21

16^th April, 2026(rohit)

¶22

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

Manish Kumar Aged about , 25 years, Son of , Sh. Vijay Kumar, v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Aged about , 25 years, Son of , Sh. Vijay Kumar, v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dola Ram Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Neeraj Kumar Vs Ld. Sub Divisional Magistrate Division Jawali and Others

Ishan Sharma and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Another

Ajay Kumar and Others Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Others

Malti and Another Vs Abhishek Jain and Others

Indu Bala Vs the State of Hp and Others