Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMP.M/1683/2026 of KEWAL KRISHAN Vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 7 October 2026
Kewal Krishan vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CMP(M) No. 1683 of 2026 07.10.2026 Present: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4-State. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by the
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Item No. S-6 Kewal Krishan vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CMP(M) No. 1683 of 2026 07.10.2026 Present: Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4-State. For the reasons stated in the application, which is duly supported by the affidavit of the applicant, delay of 131 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of LPA No. ______ of 2026 Be registered. Inter alia submits that the petitioner had been impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by the Tribunal on 01.04.2019 and he had been pursuing his remedy against the writ petitioner (applicant)/respondent - Om Prakash, who apparently on the date of his appointment on 22.04.2006 did not have the requisite qualification for the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET) at Government Middle School, Himgiri Kothi, which he obtained only on 26.07.2006. The learned Single Judge has also noticed this fact, which is not disputed in paragraph-8 of the judgment. It is submitted that the State vide order dated 18.06.2024 apparently regularized the services of Om Prakash and the learned Single Judge has, thus, gone on to hold that the said order is not under challenge. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner would have locus standi and once Om Prakash does not have the requisite qualification, the State should have been given liberty to proceed against the said person in accordance with law as to whether he was eligible to hold the post or not and seek regularisation. Notice. Mr. Arsh Rattan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4-State. Notice be issued to respondent No. 5, returnable for 09.12.2026, on taking steps within one week.
(G. S. Sandhawalia)
Chief Justice
(Bipin C. Negi)
Judge 7th October, 2026(sanjeev)