ARCHANA JISHTU(Not Applicable) vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/3840/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010107102026

Filing Number

CWP/9074/2026

Filing Date

11-Mar-2026

Registration No

CWP/3840/2026

Registration Date

25-Mar-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 28-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARCHANA JISHTU(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Mohamed Ahamed Safee,Pranav Kumar Kaushal,Pranav Kumar Kaushal, ,Sameer Miyan,Pranav Kumar Kaushal

Respondent(s)

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

    Adv. AG 1123

  2. 2.State of Himachal Pradesh(Not Applicable)

  3. 3.The Director of School Education Himachal Pradesh(Not Applicable)

  4. 4.Deputy Director of School Education Shimla(Not Applicable)

  5. 5.Block Elementary Education Office Kumarsain(Not Applicable)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the petition filed by Smt. Archana Jishtu with a directive that the Competent Authority decide on her representation within twelve weeks from the date of judgment. The court accepted notice on behalf of the State and granted the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Apr-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/3840/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of the petition filed by Smt. Archana Jishtu with a directive that the Competent Authority decide on her representation within twelve weeks from the date of judgment. The court accepted notice on behalf of the State and granted the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case