2025:HHC:39456 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 700 of 2025 Date of decision: 19.11.2025 Nishant Kumar …Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Ms. Meera Devi and Ms. Jyoti Dogra, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12985 of 2025, titled Nishant Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., decided on 12.08.2025, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on account of delay, keeping in view the fact that the present appellant was removed way back in the year, 2019 having been appointed by the Parents Teachers Association on 02.02.2009, as a Physical Education Teacher. 2. Apparently, the regular teacher had replaced the present appellant in the year, 2019 and the present appellant was satisfied and never agitated in spite of having served for ten long years. In the year, 2024, he gave a representation 2 2025:HHC:39456 (Annexure P-3) that there is a post lying vacant in the same school. After a period of another year, the writ petition came to be filed seeking appointment as such as Physical Education Teacher only on the ground that the post is lying vacant. 3. The settled principle being that appointment can only be granted on the basis of recruitment process once the posts are advertised, the appellant has no vested right as such to be considered for appointment only because the post is lying vacant and that he had earlier served on the said post on an arrangement made by the Parents Teachers Association. 4. In such circumstances, since the issue has not been agitated by the appellant at an earlier point of time on the strength of any vested right, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition in limine on the ground of delay and laches, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, which warrants interference by way of Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 19th November, 2025 Judge (sanjeev)