ARCHANA SHARMA(Not Applicable) vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS(Not Applicable) — CWP/6788/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 06th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HPHC010273732026

Filing Number

CWP/23832/2026

Filing Date

05-May-2026

Registration No

CWP/6788/2026

Registration Date

05-May-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

06-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARCHANA SHARMA(Not Applicable)

    Adv. Rajesh Kumar,Rakesh Chauhan,Rakesh Chauhan, ,Rakesh Chauhan

Respondent(s)

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

    Adv. AG 1123

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

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

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-May-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan GoelView PDF

    The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of petitioner Archana Sharma's civil writ petition by directing the Competent Authority to decide her representation (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking order within 8 weeks in accordance with law. The court did not provide substantive reasoning in this oral judgment, instead remitting the matter back to the administrative authority for decision on the merits of her representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-May-2026

    Notice Before Admission

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel

  4. 05-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CWP/6788/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh disposed of petitioner Archana Sharma's civil writ petition by directing the Competent Authority to decide her representation (Annexure P-3) by passing a speaking order within 8 weeks in accordance with law. The court did not provide substantive reasoning in this oral judgment, instead remitting the matter back to the administrative authority for decision on the merits of her representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case