( 2025:HHC:25017 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.5744 of 2020 Decided on: 30th July, 2025 Desh Raj .......Petitioner versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 5. Mr.Devender K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.6. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) Heard. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Lecturer (English) made under Para Teacher Policy on 24.01.2004. 3. The ground on which the petitioner intends to sustain his challenge is that the private respondent No.6 did not have the requisite experience for the post. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:25017 ) 2 4. The instant petition was filed before the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal as O.A. No.7290 of 2018 in the month of November, 2018 i.e. after more than 14 years of the date of appointment of respondent No.6. 5. The Administrative Tribunal Act provides for limitation for filing original applications before the Tribunals. Admittedly, the original application was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. 6. On closure of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the matter came to be transferred to the files of this Court. Though the bar of limitation is not strictly attracted in writ jurisdiction, yet it has to be filed within a reasonable time. Delay of 14 years cannot be considered reasonable by any stretch of imagination. The only explanation rendered by the petitioner is that he had been asking for the experience certificate of private respondent from the official respondents, but they failed to provide the document or information to the petitioner, which forced him to approach the learned Tribunal. 7. The explanation so rendered cannot help the cause of the petitioner. The cause of action had arisen to the petitioner in January, 2004 and it cannot be believed that the ( 2025:HHC:25017 ) 3 petitioner waited for 14 years, before approaching the Court, only expecting response from the official respondents to his queries. 8. The case of the petitioner is hopelessly barred by delay and laches and in such circumstances, the merits of the case, if any, need not be examined. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed on the count that it is barred by delay and laches, so also the pending applications, if any. July 30, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya ) (naveen) Judge