High CourtsSingle Bench

Priyanka vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 22 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 SHI CK 0063

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 9202 Of 2023

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 325 words

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

1.

Notice. Mr. Rajat Chauhan, learned Law Officer and Mr. Dalip K. Sharma, larned Counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4, respectively.

2.

On the oral request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, name of respondent No. 5 is deleted from the array of parties and in its place, Member Secretary, Erstwhile H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, is impleaded as party-respondent No. 5. Ms. Suchitra Sen, learned Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of said respondent.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue subject matter of this Writ Petition is no more res integra and the same stands adjudicated upon by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4145 of 2022 , titled as Rajesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. & others, decided on 01.09.2022 along with connected matters, which judgment has subsequently been followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4090 of 2023, titled as Sulochna Sharma vs. State of H.P. & others along with connected matters, decided on 26.06.2023. Accordingly, he submits that interest of justice would be served in case this petition is disposed of in terms of the directions that have been passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.4145 of 2022.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 could not dispute the fact that the issue subject matter of this petition is akin to the one decided by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, judgment passed wherein is being relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.

Therefore, this petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the aforesaid judgment and in case the same is found to be covered, then same and similar benefits be extended to the petitioner also, by declaring her result accordingly. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.