IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.5701 of 2025 Decided on 19th May, 2026 Sapna Kumari …Petitioner Versus H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board Hamirpur and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That respondent No.1 may very kindly be directed to recommend the name of the petitioner in post code 447 to the post of JOA (IT) under category OBC, sub category WFF from the date, respondents No.2 and 3 have been recommended for appointment, in the interest of justice. (ii) That the recommendation of respondents No.2 and 3 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and there appointment at Annexure P-10 and P-11 dated 27.09.2017 & 29.09.2017 respectively, 2 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may very kindly be ordered to appoint against the post of JOA (IT) on contract basis, with all consequential benefits i.e., pay, seniority increments and arrear accrued thereunder be ordered to be paid with interest @9% per annum, in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is assailing the appointments of the private respondents, which were made in the year 2017. 3. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner has approached this Court belatedly that is almost after eight years as from the date when the appointment was offered to the private respondents, no satisfactory answer has been given. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the private respondents informed the Court that the petitioner in the year 2024 has been appointed against the post of JAO (IT) otherwise also. 5. The contention of the learned counsel that the necessary information was provided to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act only in the year 2025 cannot be a cogent answer to satisfy the issue of delay and laches. It is not as if the Right to Information Act came into force in the year 3 2025. The petitioner should have been more vigilant with regard to her rights and should have assailed the appointments of the private respondents within some reasonable time. As the same was not done and in the light of the fact that the private respondents are serving for more than eight years now against the posts in issue, there is no rational in accepting the belated petition to put their appointments in jeopardy, more so, when the petitioner also now stands appointed. 6. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, the present petition being hit by delay and laches, the same is dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 19, 2026 (Vinod)