Shilpa Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 18 July, 2026

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Shilpa Devi vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 18 July, 2026

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
                                        CWP No.2738 of 2014
                                        Decided on 18th July 2026
    Shilpa Devi
                                                 ...Petitioner




                                                            .
                               Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and others
                                                ...Respondents
    Coram





    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1
Whether approved for reporting?

of
For the petitioner: Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.

SPONSORED

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
rt Advocate General, for respondents No.1
to 3.

Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, for

respondent No.4.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) To quash the appointment of respondent No.4 to

the post of Part Time Water Carrier at GPS Ghalingeha.

ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to give
the joining letter to the petitioner as per Annexure P-3,

to the post of Part Time Water Carrier at GPS
Ghalingeha.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

appointment against the post of Water Carrier in the present

case was as per Clause-12 of the policy.

::: Downloaded on – 18/07/2026 20:28:47 :::CIS
2

3. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that

Clause-12 of the said policy was held to be ultra vires by this

Court in CWP No.7498 of 2014, titled Mangla Devi versus State

.

of Himachal Pradesh and others, which judgment was upheld

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also in Civil Appeal

No.897 of 2017, titled State of Himachal Pradesh and others

versus Mangla Devi and others.

of

4. In the light of this fact, as the appointment under

challenge was made under Clause-12 of the policy which has
rt
been held to be unconstitutional, no relief as prayed for to the

petitioner can be granted as the petition is dismissed in the light

of the law declared by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court

in Mangla Devi versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others

(supra) as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

5. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also

stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 18, 2026
(Vinod)

::: Downloaded on – 18/07/2026 20:28:47 :::CIS