Himachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On : 04.11.2024 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 4 November, 2024
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2024:HHC:10561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
SHIMLA
CWP No. 11563 of 2024
Decided on : 04.11.2024
Kuldeep Kumar and others.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others.
...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes
For the petitioner : M/s Adarsh Kumar Vashista and
Shivom Vashista, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal,
Additional Advocate General, for
respondents No.1 & 2.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have,
inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-
"That a writ in the nature of madamus may
kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners and
against the respondents directing the respondent
No. 3 to recommend the names of the petitioners
1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2024:HHC:10561
for appointment against the post of PGT
(Commerce)(on contract), post code 305, against
advertisement no. 22/2011 dated 13.12.2011
immediately after the declaration of result on
21.11.2012 with a further direction to respondent
no. 2 to offer appointment to the petitioners as PGT
Commerce on contract w.e.f. December 2012
alongwith all consequential benefits and the
appointments made to the petitioners w.e.f.
2.07.2014 may kindly be ordered to be treated
having been made w.e.f. December 2012 along with
all consequential benefits of seniority, annual
increments leave encashment and pensionary
benefits for all intents and purposes with arrears of
pay and allowances alongwith due and admissible
interest in the interest of justice"
2. The case of the petitioners is that a recruitment
process was undertaken by the respondents to fill up 103 posts
of PGT (Commerce), vide Advertisement dated 13.12.2011.
The petitioners applied for the post being duly qualified. They
underwent the process of recruitment and were ultimately
2024:HHC:10561
offered appointments on 02.07.2014, vide Annexure P-5. Their
grievance is that as the result of the said process was declared
as far back as on 21.11.2012, therefore, the respondents be
directed to treat them as having been appointed with effect
from 21.11.2012 because the delay in offering them
appointment for any reason whatsoever, which was not
attributable to the petitioners, cannot act to their deterrent.
3. An objection has been taken with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delays and
latches, by the learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as
documents appended with this writ petition, this Court is of the
considered view that the petition is indeed hit by gross delays
and latches and filing of this writ petition is nothing but gross
abuse of the process of law.
5. The process to fill up the post was undertaken in the
year 2011 and result was declared by way of a Press Note on
21.11.2012. It is a matter of record that the petitioners were
offered appointment on 02.07.2014. This Court fails to
2024:HHC:10561
understand that if the petitioners indeed were aggrieved by the
fact that the appointment which was offered to them in the
month of July, 2014 was bad and they ought to have been
offered appointment from the date of the declaration of the
result then what took the petitioners one full decade to realize
this fact. The answer is but obvious that filing of this writ petition
after a decade is nothing but an attempt so as to take a chance
as petitioners stand nothing to loose in this litigation. The Court
deprecates this kind of practice because until and unless there
are cogent reasons spelled out in the writ petition as to why the
petitioners could not come to the Court within some reasonable
time, as from the date when cause of action accrued, the Court
has to be in circumspect with regard to the intentions of the
petitioners who approach the Court, after such long delays, as
in the present case.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with cost
of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the petitioners with Himachal
Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. Cost to be within a
period of four weeks. For compliance, list on 09.12.2024.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
2024:HHC:10561
disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
November 04, 2024
(Shivank Thakur)
