IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12458 of 2025 Decided on: 31st July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neha …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to appoint her as Drawing Teacher in GSSS Dah Kulara, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra. 2. From the writ record, it appears that the petitioner appeared in an interview conducted by the School Management Committee (SMC) of GSSS Dah Kulara, District Kangra for the post of Art & Craft Teacher on 20.12.2014. She was selected by the SMC on 12.06.2015. The appointment order was declined to her by respondent 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 No.3-the Principal of the concerned school taking note of less number of students in the concerned subject vide communication dated 06.07.2015 (Annexure P-3). 3. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid communication dated 06.07.2015, declining appointment to the petitioner, was accepted by her. No further challenge was led by her. The petitioner did not even represent to the concerned authorities. After ten years, she has instituted this writ petition on 29.07.2025 seeking direction to the respondents to appoint her as Drawing Teacher in the concerned school with all consequential service benefits. The petitioner had been sleeping over the cause of action, which had accrued in her favour on 06.07.2015. She did not resort to any remedy whatsoever against respondents’ not appointing her on SMC basis against the post of Drawing Teacher in the concerned school. It is too late in the day for her to seek appointment on that basis. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that this writ petition be directed to be treated as representation to be decided by the respondents in view of Vedika Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.2. It has been contended that the aforesaid Ms. Vedika was also 2 CWP No.7645 of 2025, decided on 09.05.2025 3 similarly situated and in her case, direction has been given to the respondents to consider her representation and take appropriate decision thereupon. However, this relief also cannot be granted to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances. Order dated 18.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) makes it apparent that aforesaid Ms. Vedika had been vigilant about her rights and had instituted several petitions in succession, i.e. CWP No.9792 of 2014 and thereafter Original Application No.1735 of 2015, about her grievance. Petitioner is not similarly situated. She has not taken any appropriate and necessary steps for the redressal of her grievance at the relevant time. Claim of the petitioner is barred by unexplained delay and laches. 5. In view of above, I find no merit in the instant petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 31, 2025 Judge Mukesh