1 2025:HHC:44243 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 686 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.12.2025. ________________________________________________________ Vijay Kumar …..Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others ...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?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr. B. Nandan Vashisht, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration in the present appeal is to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 9145 of 2023, titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 State of Himachal Pradesh & another, dated 07.11.2024. 2. The prayer of the appellant-petitioner to participate in the selection process and counselling for the selection of the vacant post of JBT in terms of Advertisement dated 11.10.2023 (Annexure P-3) was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, as he possessed a Post Graduation Degree and also B.Ed and M.Ed. Degrees, but did not possess a three years integrated B.Ed-M.Ed Degree, which was the requirement for the said post as per the Advertisement Notice. 3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the Advertisement was not under challenge and the Court could not read more in respect of said requirement than what was mentioned in the Advertisement and thus, dismissed the writ petition. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, being CMP No. 3 2985 of 2024, was filed by the petitioner for impleading the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) through its Secretary, which is as such the statutory Expert Body/Authority to prescribe various courses in Institutions throughout the country, as respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. 5. We have gone through the writ file. Apparently, the said application was never pressed before the learned Single Judge, though, the learned Counsel had appeared for respondent No. 3-the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The writ petition remained pending before the learned Single Judge from 21.11.2023, on which date, an interim order was passed that the respondents may go on with the process of counselling, but the appointments will not be offered without the leave of the Court. 6. The petitioner-appellant was never given an opportunity to provisionally participate in the recruitment process, which has now been finalized. For 4 over a year, the writ petition remained pending before the learned Single Judge for decision, but neither an effort as such was made to amend the writ petition and to seek a relief as such that the offending clause should be read down in a particular manner nor any relief was sought to challenge the Rules in question as such in pursuance to the issuance of the Advertisement, as per which, the essential qualification was in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. 7. Once the Rules as such prescribe the essential qualification, it was for the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the Authority concerned at that time and obtain an appropriate interim order to participate in the recruitment process, but he failed to do so. 8. Now, at this stage, the question is only academic which need not to be gone into. More so, the appellant himself was responsible to cause inordinate delay having chosen not to approach this Court initially, but having approached the Apex Court directly by filing 5 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2168 of 2025, titled as Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another, against the order of the learned Single Judge on 07.11.2024 and the matter remained pending before the Apex Court till 14th July, 2025. Vide said order, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition and liberty was granted to him to approach the Division Bench of this Court by way of filing a Letters Patent Appeal and to raise all questions of law and facts relating to equality in the qualification as obtained between the separate B.Ed/M.Ed Degree on the one hand and three years integrated Degree, on the other hand. 9. Keeping in view the fact that the Advertisement was issued two years back and it is settled principle that the recruitment process has to come to an end and the fresh candidates have to be given a chance as such, no useful purpose would be served, at this stage, as now the recruitment process has been finalized and the petitioner was not even 6 permitted to participate in the said process. Even otherwise, we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view as the Advertisement was issued in pursuance to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and, therefore, without laying challenge as such to the same, the writ petitioner-appellant could not have succeeded. 10. Resulantly, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. December 16, 2025 (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) (hemlata) Judge.