Disposed

Prerna Gupta v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC17 Jun 2026CWP/9561/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged recruitment of English Teachers under Advertisement No. 02/2026, alleging eligibility conditions were altered after the advertisement. The Advocate General admitted the merit list deviated from advertised qualifications, undertook fresh document verification and reconsideration per the advertisement. Petitions disposed on that statement, with directions to act within ten

What the court decided

AI extract

Prerna Gupta Vs the State of Hp and Others — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No. 8498 of 2026 a/w CWP No. 9322, 9456, 9561 & CWP No. 9569 of 2026.

¶3

Decided on: 17.6.2026.

¶4

1. CWP No. 8498 of 2026 Renu Chandel	.…Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and others ………………………………………	… Respondents. …………………………………
2. CWP No. 9322 of 2026 Banita Devi	.…Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and others ………………………………………	… Respondents. ………………………………….
3. CWP No. 9456 of 2026
Tovinder Thakur	.…Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and others ………………………………………	… Respondents. …………………………………
4. CWP No. 9561 of 2026 Prerna Gupta	.…Petitioner.
Versus
State of HP and others ………………………………………	… Respondents. ………………………………….
5. CWP No. 9569 of 2026 Yog Raj and others Versus	.…Petitioners.
State of HP and others ………………………………………………	… Respondents. ……………………………………

¶5

¶6

Coram

¶7

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the petitioner(s). : Ms. Reeta Hingmang, Advocate for the petitioner in Petition No. 8498/2026, Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in Petition No. 9322/2026, M/s. Saurav Sharma, Vinay Kumar Thakur & Ankit Chandel, Advocates, for the petitioner in Petition No. 9456/2026, Mr. Daleep Singh Kaith, Advocate, for the petitioner in Petition No. 9561/2026 and Mr. Suresh Singh Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners in Petition No. 9569 of 2026.

¶9

For the respondents. : Mr. Anoop Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General for respondents-State.

¶10

: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondentHP Rajya Chayan Aayog (HPRCA)

¶11

: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4Himachal Pradesh University.

¶12

Ajay Mohan Goel, J (Oral)

¶13

These writ petitions have been listed today on the request of learned Advocate General, who submitted that there was urgency involved in these matters.

¶14

The petitioners herein are aggrieved by the fact that the process initiated in terms of Advertisement No. 02/2026, dated 29.01.2026, (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.3 for recruiting English Teachers stands vitiated, as after the issuance of the advertisement in

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

which the essential qualifications for appointment against the post of English Teachers were clearly mentioned, the Rules of the game were changed by the Department and eligibility conditions stand altered, as was evident from the newspaper cutting (Annexure P-3).

¶18

Mr. Anoop Rattan, learned Advocate General, has made available, for the perusal of the Court, clarification dated 26.5.2026 issued on the subject “clarification regarding essential qualification for the post of English Teachers on engagement basis”, which was issued by the Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh to the Director, School Education, Himachal Pradesh and has submitted that indeed the final merit list of the candidates, which was prepared was not prepared strictly as per the essential qualifications mentioned in the advertisement, but was prepared in terms of the clarification. Learned Advocate General submits that Government shall review the same.

¶19

Learned Advocate General further submits that a fresh verification of the documents of all will be done strictly in terms of the essential qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement to assess their eligibility. He also submits that as far as the candidature of the petitioner(s) is concerned, it shall be reconsidered strictly in terms of the essential qualifications as prescribed in the advertisement.

¶20

¶21

In the light of the statement so made by the learned Advocate General, these writ petitions are disposed of by taking the statement of the learned Advocate General on record and by impressing upon the Department to do the needful, as expeditiously as possible, so that no eligible and meritorious candidate is left out in the recruitment process for the post of English Teachers and no ineligible candidate is appointed against the post. Needful be done within a period of 10 days from today.

¶22

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 17^th June, 2026 (Guleria)

Prerna Gupta v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Prerna Gupta v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Thakur Vs State of Hp and Others

Rakesh Kumar Bhardwaj Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Des Raj Vs State of Hp and Another

Urvashi Vs State of Hp and Another

Ravinder Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Reeta Devi Vs State of Hp and Another