2025:HHC:23118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2812 of 2019 Date of decision : 16.07.2025. Surjeet Singh ...Applicant. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Raju Ram Rahi, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: Heard. 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s): - “I. That the impugned order dated 18.12.2022 (Annexure-P/1) & order dated 10.03.2003 (Annexure-P/2) may be quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari and the respondents may be directed to take the services of the petitioner while taking over the College, in question, as a Lecturer Commerce (College Cadre) w.e.f. 13.06.2002. II. That the respondents may be directed to treat the petitioner while taking over his services on the same terms and conditions as the privately managed college Sujanput-Tihra were taken over as per the Annexure-P/4 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2025:HHC:23118 and the petitioner be designated as a Lecturer, Commerce (College Cadre) from the date of taking over the college. III. That the respondents may be directed to grant seniority to the petitioner w.e.f. 13.06.2002 as Lecturer (College Cadre) and thereby consequential reliefs may also be granted.” 3. The case of the petitioner is that he had qualified M.Com examination from Himachal Pradesh University and was appointed as Lecturer (Commerce) in S.D. College Nerwa, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla in the Year 2000, which was a privately managed college; (hereinafter referred to as ‘College’). 4. The aforesaid college was taken over by the State Government vide notification dated 18.12.2002 along with the eligible staff of the college w.e.f. 13.06.2002. The name of the petitioner was also included in the list of teaching staff of the college, whose services were sought to be taken over. 5. Accordingly, the services of petitioner were taken over along with the college, however, later vide office order dated 18.03.2003 the services of petitioner were ordered to be taken over w.e.f. 13.06.2002 as Lecturer (School Cadre) in Commerce) and he was posted in Government Senior Secondary School Daulatpur, District Kangra, H.P. The petitioner was relieved on 13.03.2003 in order to enable him -3- 2025:HHC:23118 to join as Lecturer (School Cadre) in Government Senior Secondary School Daulatpur, District Kangra, H.P. In compliance, petitioner joined the said school. 6. 6. In the Year, 2011 petitioner filed the instant petition for the reliefs as noted above on the grounds firstly, that he had qualified M.Com examination with 55% marks and; secondly, that though he had not qualified N.E.T, he was still entitled to be appointed as Lecturer (College Cadre) as in the case of erstwhile Arya College, Nurpur, which was also taken over by the State Government, the exemption was granted to those incumbents who had not qualified N.E.T, to qualify the same within three years from date when their services were taken over. 7. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner has placed on record copy of Minutes of 472nd meeting of the UGC held on 27.09.2010 whereby the candidates who had completed the M. Phil degree on or before 10.07.2009 were exempted from qualifying the N.E.T. On the basis of aforesaid minutes, it has been sought to be pleaded that since the petitioner had completed his M. Phil degree in the Year 2003, he had become eligible for being appointed as Lecturer (College Cadre) without having qualified N.E.T. -4- 2025:HHC:23118 8. The Recruitment and Promotional Rules for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) as notified on 29.11.2001 were prevalent at the time when the college was taken over. The essential qualifications were that the candidate should have passed Masters Degree in the subject with 55% marks and should also have cleared N.E.T. The exemption was only for those candidates who had completed their M. Phil on or before 31.12.1993 or had submitted the thesis for Ph.D. before that date. 9. Since, the petitioner had not qualified NET, he was not found eligible for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) and in such circumstances he was offered the appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre). Admittedly, the case of petitioner did not also qualify for exemption. 10. The fact that the incumbents of erstwhile Arya College, Nurpur were granted exemption to qualify within three years from the date of taking over of college will not help the cause of petitioner for the simple reason that the petitioner had chose to approach the Court belatedly i.e. approximately after 8 years from the date he was offered appointment as Lecturer (School Cadre). Noticeably, the erstwhile Arya College, Nurpur was taken over w.e.f. -5- 2025:HHC:23118 25.06.2002 vide the same notification by which the S.D. College, Nerwa was taken over. 11. The petitioner submits that he had been making representations to the competent authority and therefore the delay in filing the petition had occurred. 12. It is more than settled that mere submission of representation does not extend the limitation. The huge delay and latches which apparently have taken place in the instant case do not entitle the petitioner from claiming the relief. The petitioner cannot be relegated to the position in which he wants to be placed after lapse of about 22 years. 13. In case the petitioner had to seek parity with the incumbents in erstwhile Arya College, Nurpur he was required to approach the Court within reasonable time so that his claim could be examined at the touchstone of the principles of law. The delay in the instant case is unexplained. Needless to say the delay provides opportunity for third party rights to germinate and such rights cannot be allowed to fade away in the litigation suffering from vice of delay and laches. 14. As regards the reliance on the minutes of meeting of UGC dated 27.09.2010, again the petitioner cannot derive -6- 2025:HHC:23118 any benefit as the decisions taken by the UGC would operate prospectively for the appointments to be made thereafter. Such a decision cannot have retrospective effect unless specifically provided for. 13. In the light of above discussion, I find no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 16th July, 2025 Judge (Vriti)