CWP/4734/2022 on 16 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.4

of 2022

Decided on: 16.10.2026 Meenu Sharma

...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Dr. Naresh Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.

Rupinder

Singh

Thakur, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Respondent No.4 ex-parte. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge

(Oral)

The petitioner by way of present petition has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) That the impugned office order dated 23.09.2017 qua to Sr. No. 11 i.e. respondent No.4 issued by the office of the Deputy Director of Elementary Education District Mandi, H.P. may kindly be set- aside and quashed being arbitrary, illegal discriminatory, void ab-initio, violation of the principle of natural justice and of Article 14 and 16 of Indian Constitution.

(ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing respondents No.1 to 3 to appoint

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

petitioner as Shastri on batch wise basis from the date when her juniors and less meritorious have been appointed as such with all consequential benefits.”

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was possessing the requisite qualification to hold the post of Shastri, was called for the counseling for selection on batch wise basis on 22.07.2017. However, instead of offering her appointment, respondent No.4 was offered the appointment. Though the petitioner has scored more marks in the examination of Shastri, but appointment was offered to respondent No.4 only for the reason that she had obtained certificate of Shastri on 21.08.2006, earlier to the petitioner, who was issued the same on 04.09.2006.

3. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the illegal acts on the part of the respondents No.1 to 3, had represented to the Department and also personally met the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi number of times, but no heed was paid to her requests. Thereafter, the petitioner got served a legal notice dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure P-2) on respondents No.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to send a detailed report. However, when nothing was done, the petitioner has approached the Court by way of present petition.

4. The petitioner has alleged in the petition that she had passed Shastri examination on 21.08.2006, on the same date when respondent No.4 had passed the examination, as is evident from a perusal of information supplied to her, under the Right to Information Act (in short ‘RTI’) on 01.02.2022 (Annexure P-4). Once the petitioner had scored 638 marks, which were admittedly higher than respondent No.4, who had scored 626 marks, she ought to have been offered appointment, but the respondents-State has wrongly ignored her candidature on batch wise appointment, which action on the part of respondents-State is wrong, illegal, and capricious. It has also been averred that the grave injustice has been done to the petitioner on account of the illegal acts on the part of the respondents-State and as she such has prayed for a direction to respondents No.1 to 3-State to quash the office order dated 23.09.2017 qua respondent No.4 with further direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to offer her appointment, especially on batch wise basis, from the date when her juniors and less meritorious, have been appointed with all consequential benefits.

5. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply to the petition and in preliminary submissions, averred that respondent No.3, on receipt of approval from the competent authority had decided to fill up 22 posts of Shastries on batch wise basis. The name of the eligible candidates was called from various employment exchanges and wide publicity was also made by publishing press notes in leading news papers. The counseling for the batch-wise recruitment was conducted on 22.07.2017. It has further been averred that as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules (in short ‘R&P Rules’) for the post of Shastri on batch wise basis the batch is reckoned from the date of issuance of original certificate/degree of Shastri. If more than one candidate has been issued the final examination certificate on the same date, then inter-se-seniority would be determined on the basis of Teachers Eligibility Test (in short ‘TET’) (Shastri) merit and in the event of TET merit being same, senior in age would get precedence over junior in age. It has also been averred that in the case of the petitioner, the date of issuance of final examination certificate of Shastri is 04.09.2006, whereas in case of respondent No.4, it is 21.08.2006, hence, respondent No.4 being senior in batch, has rightly been selected and offered appointment against the post of Shastri by respondent No.3, as per the provisions contained in the Rules. It has further been averred that the petition is barred by limitation. The cause of action pertains to the year 2017, whereas the present petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2022 i.e. after a lapse of about five years, hence the petition is not maintainable on the grounds of delay and laches and same has to be dismissed on this sole ground.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully.

7. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Dr. Naresh Mahajan, learned counsel has vehemently argued that since the action on the part of respondents No.1 to 3 is patently illegal and arbitrary, the delay should not come in the way of the petitioner to impart substantial justice to her. She further vehemently argued that the petitioner, due to COVID-19 pandemic, was unable to approach the Court and she was raking up the issue before the competent authority and even before coming to the Court, a legal notice dated 15.02.2022 (Annexure P-2), was got served on respondents No.1 to 3 to ventilate her grievances. However, when no heed was paid to her requests, she was left with no option except to approach this Court by way of present petition.

8. Further, she vehemently argued that once, as per the information received under the RTI from the University, where from the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 had obtained the degree of Shastri, it is clear that the date of declaration of the result is 21.08.2006, thus the date of issuance of certificate mentioned as 01.09.2006 cannot be considered and as such the said action on the part of respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

9. Learned senior counsel has also vehemently argued that once the petitioner had scored more marks than the private respondent, she ought to have been offered appointment, more particularly when the batch of the passing is of the same year.

10. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General and learned Deputy Advocate General have supported the decision and further contended that once the petitioner did not rake up the issue within a reasonable time and there is no explanation worth credence in the petition, the petition on the ground of delay and laches alone deserves to be dismissed.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the parties at the Bar and I am not concurring with the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. The counseling for the batch wise recruitment was conducted on 22.07.2017 and the present petition has been instituted before this Court on 01.07.2022 i.e. after about five years of conducting of the counseling. No doubt, it has been averred in the petition that against the selection list dated 23.09.2017, the petitioner had immediately reached the Department and also met personally respondent No.3 number of times, but no heed was paid to the claim of the petitioner. If respondents No.1 to 3 were not paying any heed to the requests made by the petitioner, she could have immediately come to the Court, neither she come to the Court nor any representation has been filed by her before serving respondents No.1 to 3 a legal notice dated 15.02.2022. By serving the legal notice after about five years, the limitation will not run from the said date, but it starts from the date, when the selection was made.

12. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner has vehemently argued that since there was COVID-19 pandemic in between, the petitioner could not come to the

Court. However, the said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that COVID-19 pandemic was in the year 2020 and it lasted till February, 2022. The petitioner has not placed on record any material prior to the said date of COVID-19 pandemic and further even as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the limitation of three months was granted with respect to those cases, where the limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022. However, in the case of the petitioner, the delay was much prior to COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the pandemic was over in February 2022, the petitioner did not file the petition within three months, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SUO MOTU Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020. Since there is no plausible explanation in the petition and further the petition has been instituted after about five years from the date of conducting the counseling on 22.07.2017, the same is barred by delay and laches

13. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, (1974) 1 SCC 317, State of M.P. and others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal

and others, (1986) 4 SCC 566, Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, Tukaram Kana Joshi and others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and others, (2013) 1 SCC 353 and Chairman, State Bank of India and another vs. M.J. James, (2022) 2 SCC 301 and contended that since there is only delay of five years, the Court while imparting justice has to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach on the point of delay and laches to ensure that matters are decided on merits. It is true that the Court has to adopt liberal approach while considering the delay but at the same time, the Court has to even consider the explanation. In the present case, the petitioner has neither given any plausible explanation in the writ petition nor any material has been placed on record to suggest that the petitioner was raking up the issue before the competent authority and, therefore, the aforementioned judgments are not attracted to the facts of the present case.

14. In Nandlal Jaiswal’s case (supra), it has been held that if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The aforementioned judgment in Nandlal Jaiswal’s case (supra) came up for consideration in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 and it has been held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ Court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The Court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional Court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approached the Court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction of the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, ‘procrastination is the greatest thief of time’ and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the present case, since there is not plausible explanation in the entire petition that why the petitioner did not rake up the issue before COVID-19 pandemic, except bald assertions that petitioner immediately reported the Department and also met personally to the Deputy Director of Elementary Education, Mandi, H.P., the said explanation is not sufficient to entertain the petition after about five years of the cause of action.

15. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed on delay and laches alone. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

th October, 2026

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge