RAJNI PRABHAKAR(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — EX.P./350/2026

Case under High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Original Side) Rules, 1997 Section R16 (1). Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: HPHC010030392026

Filing Number

EX.P./2581/2026

Filing Date

08-Jan-2026

Registration No

EX.P./350/2026

Registration Date

05-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Coram

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Last updated 14-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Original Side) Rules, 1997 Section R16 (1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RAJNI PRABHAKAR(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Mohit Thakur

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable)

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.Director of Schools ( Education )(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.Deputy Director of Higher Education(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Deputy Director of Elementary Education(Not Applicable)

  5. 5.Principal GSSS Deothi(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 25-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

    Summary: In Rajni Prabhakar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (Ex. Pet. No. 350 of 2026), the court found that the respondents failed to render an effective decision on the petitioner's representation, merely citing pendency of a Letters Patent Appeal as justification. The case was adjourned with the respondents granted a final two-week opportunity to file a compliance affidavit, to be listed thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 25-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal DuaView PDF

  5. 13-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 08-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. EX.P./350/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In Rajni Prabhakar Vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (Ex. Pet. No. 350 of 2026), the court found that the respondents failed to render an effective decision on the petitioner's representation, merely citing pendency of a Letters Patent Appeal as justification. The case was adjourned with the respondents granted a final two-week opportunity to file a compliance affidavit, to be listed thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case