IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3124 of 2015 Decided on: 26th August, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Himachal Pradesh B.Ed. Colleges Association …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ridhima Karol, Advocate vice Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that with the efflux of time, most of the reliefs claimed for by the petitioner have been rendered infructuous, therefore, this writ petition though be permitted to be withdrawn, however, liberty be reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in accordance with law, in case of any surviving grievances. Prayer is accepted. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 26, 2026 Judge Mukesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3124 of 2015 Decided on: 26th August, 2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Himachal Pradesh B.Ed. Colleges Association …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another .....Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Ridhima Karol, Advocate vice Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Khem Raj, Advocate vice Ms. Archna Dutt, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Learned vice counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that with the efflux of time, most of the reliefs claimed for by the petitioner have been rendered infructuous, therefore, this writ petition though be permitted to be withdrawn, however, liberty be reserved to the petitioner to file a fresh petition in accordance with law, in case of any surviving grievances. Prayer is accepted. 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua August 26, 2026 Judge Mukesh