IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6551 of 2024 Date of Decision: 16.09.2025 _______________________________________________________ Anita Guleria …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent- State. Mr. Pushpinder Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No.4. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:- “a. That the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner by re-issuing the appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon/ Chowkidar (Class-IV) and permit the petitioner to give joining on aforesaid post in the interest of justice; 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 b. That the appointment of respondent No.4 (Sh. Anil Kumar) being bad in the eyes of law, the same may kindly be quashed and set aside; 2. In the year 2021, respondent-Department invited applications for 21 posts of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon/ Chowkidar (Class-IV) on daily wage basis. Petitioner herein, being eligible, applied for the same. Respondents called upon the applicants to remain present for counseling on 20.12.2021. On 05.01.2022, petitioner visited the office of the respondents and attended the counseling for the aforesaid posts. On 30.08.2022, respondents declared the result, wherein petitioner was declared successful for the post in question. On 01.09.2022, respondents issued appointment letter to the petitioner through Indian Post Services, thereby directing her to join duty at Veterinary Dispensary, Bhtoli Phakorian, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the appointment letter. It was specifically mentioned in the appointment letter (Annexure P-3) that in case candidate concerned fails to join within the stipulated time, the appointment letter would be treated as cancelled. 3. Since petitioner herein failed to join within a period of 15 days, private respondent, namely Sh. Anil Kumar, who was at number 3 one in the waiting list, came to be offered appointment against the post in question. Pursuant to the offer of appointment, aforesaid Anil Kumar joined the post in question. After about 2 ½ months of declaration of result, petitioner by way of representation submitted to respondent No.3, requested for re-issuance of appointment letter. In the representation, petitioner alleged that she had never received appointment letter as such, there was no occasion for her to join within the prescribed period of 15 days. Vide communication dated 30.11.2022, respondent No.3 rejected the representation of the petitioner, stating therein that it was beyond the power of the said authority to issue appointment letter. On 06.06.2023, petitioner herein filed another representation to respondent No.2 with regard to her grievance, but since needful was not done, she approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 4. In nutshell, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Ms. Seema Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that since petitioner never received appointment letter, there was no occasion for her to join within stipulated period of 15 days. She further submitted that representation filed by the petitioner was received by Deputy Director Animal Husbandry, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh much prior to 4 the joining of the private respondent, but yet he took no steps to verify whether petitioner had actually received the appointment letter or not, rather afore authority himself apprised the higher authority that on account of non-joining of post in question by the petitioner, one post had fallen vacant and the same may be filled up by offering appointment to the person next in line. 5. To the contrary, Mr. B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State and Mr. Pushpinder Kumar, learned counsel representing the private respondent, while justifying the impugned action of the respondents inasmuch as offering appointment to the private respondent, vehemently argued that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands for the reason that factum with regard to issuance of appointment letter had come her knowledge well within time. While referring to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as well as documents annexed therewith, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after receipt of representation filed by the petitioner, matter was got inquired from the postal authorities. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Branch Post Master, Bilaspur, categorically informed the Deputy Director Animal Husbandry, Kangra vide communication dated 29.09.2023 letter No. AHY-KGR-(B)156/98-16133 (Annexure R-3) was received on 5 03.09.2022 and its registered number was RE70312479IN. He further submitted that after receipt of afore letter, addressee was contacted through Mobile No.78149-32068, who categorically stated that letter may be handed over to her nephew, Sh. Govind Singh son of Sh. Om Prakash and accordingly, aforesaid letter, as detailed hereinabove, was duly handed over to Sh. Govind Singh on the same day. 6. To substantiate factum with regard to service of letter upon the addressee, respondents have also placed on record receipt (Annexure R-4), wherein letter, as detailed hereinabove, can be seen to have been received by Sh. Govind Singh, cousin brother of the petitioner. Since it is quite apparent from the documents referred hereinabove that appointment letter was received well within time and same was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while rejecting the representation of the petitioner, whereby she prayed for re-issuance of appointment letter. Since it was made clear in the appointment letter that selected candidates was required to join within a period of 15 days from the receipt thereof, failing which, appointment would be deemed to have been cancelled, no illegality can be attributed to the respondents in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and thereafter offering the same to private respondent. 6 7. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge September 16, 2025 (shankar)