Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Hp — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Himachal Pradesh HC
2026
Rakesh Kumar Vs State of HpRakesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Disposed¶27

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Mar 2026CWP/676/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; CWP No. 676 of 2014; High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Shimla); decided 07.03.2026; Ajay Mohan Goel J.; challenge to order dated 8-4-2011 of Addl. Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Chairman Inquiry Committee; prayer to quash order, release grant-in-aid, parity with PTA Lecturers; re-assessment of inter se merit; new criteria versus original criteria; connected case CWP No. 715 of 2014, Dhirender Kumar v. State of HP & Ors. (prayer for re-engagement rejected); petitioner appointed Lecturer (School Cadre) on regular basis; petition lost efficacy; proceedings closed without adjudication on merits; miscellaneous applications disposed; advocates: Surinder Kumar Saklani, Arun Kumar, Vijay Kumar Verma (petitioner); Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General (respondents 1-5); Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate, with Tek Chand and Tarun Garla (respondent 6).

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer (School Cadre) on regular basis, the petition has lost its efficacy. ¶27

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Chairman Inquiry Committee should be quashed and set aside, the respondents directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner, and the petitioner treated at par with the other PTA Lecturers. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has been appointed as Lecturer (School Cadre) on regular basis, the petition has lost its efficacy.

Key takeaways

Proceedings are closed in light of the subsequent development, without adjudication on merits, the Court additionally noting that in connected matter CWP No. 715 of 2014 (Dhirender Kumar) it had already rejected the private respondent's prayer for re-engagement; pending miscellaneous application(s) stand disposed of accordingly.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CWP No. 676 of 2014 | High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla | Decided 07.03.2026 | Ajay Mohan Goel, J. — Sh. Rakesh Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others: Writ petition praying for quashing of the order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Chairman Inquiry Committee, release of grant-in-aid to the petitioner, and treatment at par with other PTA Lecturers was closed without adjudication on merits. The Court held that, the petitioner being now appointed as Lecturer (School Cadre) on regular basis, the petition had lost its efficacy, and further noted that in the connected matter CWP No. 715 of 2014 (Dhirender Kumar v. State of HP & Ors.) it had already rejected the private respondent's prayer for re-engagement. Pending miscellaneous application(s) disposed of accordingly. Petitioner's counsel had pleaded that the Committee, while re-assessing inter se merit in compliance with earlier judgments of this Court, formulated a new criteria rather than adopting the criteria used at the first instance — a plea left unadjudicated owing to the closure.

A

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

1 Whether 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.”

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.

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.

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)

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Chairman Inquiry Committee should be quashed and set aside, the respondents directed to release the grant-in-aid to the petitioner, and the petitioner treated at par with the other PTA Lecturers.¶20
2.
Whether the Committee's formulation of a new criteria to judge suitability, adopted during re-assessment of inter se merit undertaken in compliance with this Court's earlier judgments, renders the process bad in law (argued by petitioner's counsel; left unadjudicated as proceedings were closed).medium confidence¶22

Cases cited

Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority

AI extract

Dhirender Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors.Relied on¶27
CWP No. 715 of 2014, titled Dhirender Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Chairman Inquiry Committee; petitioner prayed for its quashing and setting aside, release of grant-in-aid, and parity with other PTA Lecturers.¶15
Ld. Addl Deputy Commissioner Mandi / Chairman Inquiry Committee · 8-4-2011
Prior proceeding
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in compliance with judgments passed by this Court, the Committee undertook re-assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates but formulated a new criteria instead of the criteria adopted at the first instance.¶22
Prior proceeding
In connected matter CWP No. 715 of 2014 (Dhirender Kumar v. State of HP & Ors.), this Court rejected the prayer of the private respondent herein for re-engagement.¶27
Prior proceeding
Subsequent development noted by the Court: the petitioner has since been appointed as a Lecturer (School Cadre) on regular basis, though counsel asserted the cause agitated remained alive.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sh. Rakesh Kumar¶4
Surinder Kumar Saklani, Arun Kumar, Vijay Kumar Verma
respondent
State of Himachal Pradesh and others¶7
Rajat Chauhan, Lovneesh Kanwar (Sr.), Tek Chand, Tarun Garla

Coram

AI extract

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goelauthor¶10

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Himachal Pradesh HC
Decided on: 7 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 24 Jan 2014
Case no.: CWP/676/2014
CNR: HPHC010023722014
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
Disposal: Disposed Off
Case type: CWP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Ajay Mohan Goel

Mohit Sharma and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others
6 Mar 2026
Joginder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others
6 Mar 2026
Anita Kumari and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others
6 Mar 2026
Amit Kumar Kashyap Vs Union of India
7 Mar 2026
Anjana Kumari Vs State of Hp
7 Mar 2026
Ganesha Devi Vs State of Hp
7 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Hp, CWP/676/2014 (HP), decided on 7 March 2026.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Cases cited1

Dhirender Kumar Vs. State of HP & Ors.Relied on¶27

Open Authorities

Procedural history4

Order dated 8-4-2011 passed by the Ld. Addl. Deputy Commissioner Mandi/Chairman Inquiry Committee; petitioner prayed for its quashing and setting aside, release of grant-in-aid, and parity with other PTA Lecturers.Ld. Addl Deputy Commissioner Mandi / Chairman Inquiry Committee · 8-4-2011
Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, in compliance with judgments passed by this Court, the Committee undertook re-assessment of the inter se merit of the candidates but formulated a new criteria instead of the criteria adopted at the first instance.
In connected matter CWP No. 715 of 2014 (Dhirender Kumar v. State of HP & Ors.), this Court rejected the prayer of the private respondent herein for re-engagement.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Parties & counsel