Himachal Pradesh High Court
COPC/174/2016 on 29 December 2016
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA SHIMLA SHIMLA SHIMLA
COPC No. COPC No. COPC No. COPC No. 174
of 2016 of 2016 of 2016
Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: Date of decision: 29.12.
29.12.
29.12. 29.12.201
Sh. Deep Chand & others
.…Petitioners
Versus Sh. Vinay Dhiman
…Respondent
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma
Sandeep Sharma, Judge. , Judge. , Judge. , Judge. Whether approved for reporting ?1 ____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Advocate.
Mans Mans Mans Mansoor Ahmad Mir, oor Ahmad Mir, oor Ahmad Mir, oor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice Chief Justice Chief Justice Chief Justice (Oral)
It is stated that the respondent has not complied with the directions contained in the judgment dated 26.10.2015, passed by this Court in CWP No. 7360 of 2014. It is apt to reproduce para-2 of the said judgment herein: “2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as mutually agreed, petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
(a) The correctness of the answers qua questions No. 20 and 125 of “C” Series to the Teachers’ Eligibility Test, 2013 (Code No. 1301), shall re-considered by the Committee.
(b) In the event of all the members of the Committee being not available, a fresh Committee shall be constituted to re- examine the correctness of the prescribed key answers.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
High Court of H.P. 2016:HHC:10882-DB ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 06:13:03 :::CIS
(c) It shall be open for the petitioners to place on record all material, within a period of one week from today before respondent No. 3.
(d) The Committee shall decide the correctness of the key answers within a period of four weeks.
(e) The Committee shall assign reasons for giving their opinion.”
2. Learned Counsel for the respondent has produced photostat copy of the answer sheet, across the Board, made part of the file.
3. We have gone through the reply. The respondent has done the needful and complied with the directions contained in the judgment, supra, in terms of para-3 of the reply.
4. The contempt petition is disposed of by providing that the petitioners are at liberty seek appropriate remedy, if still aggrieved.
( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir ) ( Mansoor Ahmad Mir )
Chief Justic Chief Justic Chief Justic Chief Justice.e.e.e.
December 29 December 29 December 29 December 29, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2016,
(Sandeep Sharma
Sandeep Sharma) ) ) ) ( hemlata)
Judge. Judge. Judge. Judge. High Court of H.P. 2016:HHC:10882-DB ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 06:13:03 :::CIS