( 2025:HHC:3564 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 208/2025 Decided on: 27.02.2025 Ganga Jogta …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Bhag Chand Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. L.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Petitioner was promoted as Junior Basic Teacher (JBT) on 09.02.2021. Her case in this petition filed on 20.11.2024 is that her promotion as JBT was delayed from 31.03.2012 to 09.02.2021. That she ought to be promoted as JBT on 31.03.2012 and accordingly seeks a direction to the respondents in this regard. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the case file. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner was initially appointed as instructor and served as such till 07.09.2009; With effect from 08.09.2009, post of ‘instructor’ was 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:3564 ) converted to ‘Gramin Vidya Upasak’. Petitioner was accordingly posted as Gramin Vidya Upasak though she continued to perform her duties as JBT; Petitioner, Smt. Sulochna Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi, Sh. Jia Lal, Sh. Gulzar and Smt. Promila Chauhan, who served as Gramin Vidya Upasak, were imparted JBT Basic Course Training by the respondents. Certificate was accordingly issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.03.2013; Respondents promoted Smt. Sulochna Devi and Smt. Promila Chauhan as JBT on 31.03.2012. Petitioner was similarly situated with the aforesaid persons, but despite her repeated representations seeking promotion as JBT, respondents ignored her case for promotion from the date the same was conferred upon Smt. Sulochna Devi and Smt. Promila Chauhan etc. Petitioner was eventually promoted as JBT on 09.02.2021. 4. On the basis of above pleadings, the case has been put- forth that the petitioner deserves to be promoted as JBT w.e.f. 31.03.2012 i.e. the date when Smt. Sulochna Devi and Smt. Promila Chauhan etc. were promoted. It is not the petitioner’s case that she was unaware about the promotion of Smt. Sulochna Devi, Smt. Pushpa Devi and Smt. Promila Chauhan etc. as JBT on 31.03.2012. In fact, the petitioner has herself pleaded that she had sent a legal notice to the respondents on 16.08.2012 seeking her promotion/appointment as JBT by converting her service nomenclatured as Gramin Vidya 3 ( 2025:HHC:3564 ) Upasak to JBT. Simply pleading now that the petitioner had applied on 03.09.2024 for information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 about the promotions as JBT conferred upon other similarly situated persons and the same information was supplied to her only on 12.09.2024, will not condone the delay and laches in filing the present petition. Nothing prevented the petitioner from seeking the information at an appropriate point of time. Cause of action admittedly accrued to the petitioner 13 years ago. There is no cogent explanation given in the petition for the delay and laches in instituting this writ petition on 20.11.2024 claiming promotion w.e.f. 31.03.2012. Persons, who would be affected with the relief claimed for by the petitioner, have also not been impleaded as parties to the writ petition. 5. For all the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition cannot be entertained at this belated stage and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 27th February, 2025(rohit)