JUDGMENT : Ranjan Sharma, J. Petitioner, Sahi Ram, has come up before this Court, seeking the following relief:- “ The respondent may be directed to conduct the personal interview of the applicant and also appoint the applicant as driver as he has qualified the ground test with cent per cent marks or in the alternative the respondent may be directed to appoint the applicant as driver-cum-operator, being senior most home guard employee.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set up by Mr. Vinod K. Sharma, Learned Counsel is that the petitioner [Sahi Ram] passed his 10+2 in the year 2013 vide Annexure A-1. He also possessed the driving license [LMVCAB] entitling him for driving a commercial vehicle/bus w.e.f. 26.06.1998 [Annexure A-2]. It is averred that while he was serving as driver with Home Guard Department since the year 2010. Respondent- Department issued an advertisement on 17.06.2015 for filling-up 30 posts of Driver-cum-Pump Operators, on contract basis. The selection process commenced w.e.f. 05.08.2015 and the petitioner being eligible, applied for the post. It is averred that the State Authorities, issued a list of candidates, who were called for interview for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operators held in the Office of Chief Fire Officer, HP Barnes Court, Shimla-2, on 27.08.2015 [Annexure A- 4] and a perusal of the said list indicates that the names of 09 eligible candidates figured in the said list and the name of the petitioner [Sahi Ram] figured at serial No.8 of the said list. 2(i). It is admitted case of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 Chief Fire Officer, Himachal Pradesh, issued an interview letter dated 13.08.2015 vide Annexure A-5; directing him to appear for personal interview on 27.08.2015 at 10:00 A.M. and the said letter was dispatched through General Post Office, Shimla on 17.08.2015 [as per postal receipts, Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6] but the said letter was delivered to him on 27.08.2015, i.e. the date of interview itself. 2(ii). In the above background, the grievance of the petitioner is due to delayed delivery of interview letter, the petitioner has been denied consideration for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator from amongst the OBC-UR category. The other candidates i.e. Respondents No.3 to 5 were appointed over and above the petitioner in an illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY: 3. The other candidates i.e. Respondents No.3 to 5 were appointed over and above the petitioner in an illegal, arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and unconstitutional manner. STAND OF THE STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY: 3. Petitioner filed Original Application No.4487 of 2018, before the State Administrative Tribunal, wherein, notice was issued on 14.08.2018, directing the respondents to file response. 3(i). Pursuant to issuance of notice the Respondents 1 & 2, filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 14.11.2018 of Chief Fire Officer, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla. Perusal of Reply-Affidavit, indicates that the advertisement was issued for 30 posts of Driver-cum- Pump Operators on 17.06.2015. 04 posts meant for Ex-Servicemen, were excluded, and selection process for remaining 26 posts of Driver-cum-Pump Operators was initiated by the respondents on 08.05.2015, onwards. 3(ii). Reply-affidavit further indicates that the selection process was conducted in three stages i.e. first stage dealing with documentation; second stage dealing with physical measurement; and third stage dealing with driving test of the eligible candidates. Reply-affidavit indicates that though the Interview Letters dated 13.08.2015 were sent to eligible candidates calling them to appear in interview on 27.08.2015, but due to non-appearance of the petitioner in interview, no marks were awarded to him due to which the petitioner could secure 40 marks [being absent in interview] whereas the Respondents 3 to 4 who participated in interview were awarded 49 marks as per Annexure A-8 and were recommended for 3 OBC-UR posts on 29.08.2015 Annexure R-1 for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operators, in accordance with law. In addition, an objection was taken in Para 5 of Reply that Original Application was barred by limitation. 3(iii) The stand of State Authorities, in the Reply- Affidavit, reads as under:- “1. That the Fire Services Department issued an advertisement vide this office order No HOM(FS)(HQ)(B)(2)6/03-1-3918-45 dated 17-06-2015 for filling up of 30 posts of Driver-cum-Pump Operators on contract basis through Direct recruitment. Out of the above 30 posts, 04 posts were earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and therefore, the department started selection process for filling up of 26 posts of Driver-cum-Pump Operators w.e.f 05-08-2015 which was conducted in three stages with the documentation in 1st Stage, physical measurement in 2nd stage and driving test in 3rd stage. The candidates who were found fit in these tests conducted by the interview board/committees were called for the personal interview held on 27-08-2015. 2. The candidates who were found fit in these tests conducted by the interview board/committees were called for the personal interview held on 27-08-2015. 2. That the call letters to appear for the personal interview on 27-08-2015 were sent well in time to the eligible candidates vide this office letter dated 13-08-2018. The applicant was also called for personal interview but he did not appear for the personal interview on the said date. …xxx…xxx…xxx…xxx 6(vi) That in reply to Para (vi) of the petition, it is submitted that the call letter was sent to the applicant on 13.08.2015. Rest of the contents of this para are denied. It is submitted that a dispatch letter was issued to the applicant well in time i.e. on 13.08.2015 without admitting the contention of the applicant that the applicant received it on 27.08.2018. The contention of the applicant is an outcome of the concoction and after thought. Therefore, this OA may be kindly dismissed qua respondent No.2. 6(ix) That the contents of para (ix) are baseless wrong and misleading and as such denied. As a matter of fact, during the year 2018 there was no personal interview for the post of driver. As far as Annexure A-8 is concerned it pertains to the interview conducted in the year 2015. The petitioner did not appear for interview, therefore, he was awarded no marks on account of personal interview and his total marks remained only 40 and the candidates who were selected they had obtained 49 marks. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed by him. The petitioner was duly informed about the date of interview vide Annexure A-5. He should have been quite vigilant about the date of personal interview which he was not, therefore he is not entitled to any relief. In view of these facts and circumstances no motive what so ever can be attributed against the respondent No.2. On the contrary the Respondent No.2 has conducted the interview fairly, transparently and in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of interview. As far as Annexure A-9 is concerned it is factually incorrect. The true picture of OBCs candidates who were called for interview is reflected in Annexure A-4. On the contrary the Respondent No.2 has conducted the interview fairly, transparently and in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of interview. As far as Annexure A-9 is concerned it is factually incorrect. The true picture of OBCs candidates who were called for interview is reflected in Annexure A-4. The candidates who were finally selected is shown in Annexure R-I.” In the above backdrop, it is averred that non appearance of the petitioner in interview has resulted in his non-selection due to lower merit as per the Merit-List [Annexure A-8], and 26 candidates includes 3 OBC-UR candidates were recommended for appointment on contract on 29.08.2015 [Annexure R-I]. STAND OF PRIVATE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5: 4. Private Respondents 3 to 5 filed a separate reply stating that pursuant to interview conducted on 27.08.2015, the Respondents No.3 to 5 were selected as Drivers-cum-Pump Operators on 29.08.2015 and they were appointed on contract basis for OBC UR category and now they have been regularized by respondent No.2 on 18.04.2019, as per Annexure R-3/1 [Colly]. Private respondents have opposed the instant petition, on the ground of limitation/delay and laches, with the averments that though the non-selection of petitioner took place in August 2015 whereas, the petitioner filed the Original Application No. 4487 of 2018 on 07.06.2018 before State Administrative Tribunal. REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER: 5. Rejoinders were filed alongwith the averments made in the writ petition, with shift in stand that had the respondents displayed the Interview Letter on Notice-Board, then, the petitioner would have participated in interview. 6. Heard Mr. Vinod K. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gobind Korla, Learned Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2 as well as Mr. S.S. Sood, Advocate, for respondents No.3 to 5 and also have gone through the material on record. ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator, against 3 OBC-UR post(s) out of total 26 posts, is devoid of any merit for the following reasons: 7(i). On 17.06.2015, 30 posts of Drivers- cum-Operators and by excluding 04 posts meant for Ex-Servicemen, the Respondents initiated the selection for filling 26 posts of Drivers-Cum-Pump Operators and therefore, the selection process commenced w.e.f. 5.8.2015, which was based on 3 stages i.e. documentation, physical test/ measurement and interview. On 17.06.2015, 30 posts of Drivers- cum-Operators and by excluding 04 posts meant for Ex-Servicemen, the Respondents initiated the selection for filling 26 posts of Drivers-Cum-Pump Operators and therefore, the selection process commenced w.e.f. 5.8.2015, which was based on 3 stages i.e. documentation, physical test/ measurement and interview. As per letter dated 13.08.2015, the petitioner was called for interview for 27.08.2015, which letter was duly received by him. However, against 3 OBC UR posts, the Selection Committee recommended the Respondents 3 to 5 for posts of Driver-Cum-Pump Operator on 29.08.2015 [Annexure R-1] leading to their appointment on contract basis. Perusal of final recommendation dated 29.08.2015, Annexure R-1 and the OBC Result vide Annexure A-8 reveals that for 3 OBC UR posts of Driver-cum- Pump Operators, the Respondents No. 3 to 5, who were having overall merit of 49 marks were recommended/selected whereas the petitioner had lower overall merit by securing 40 marks being absent in interview, for which no marks were awarded leading to his non- selection due to his non participation in the interview. The respondents 3 to 5 have also been regularized by the respondents, as Drivers-cum-Pump Operators on 18.04.2019 Annexure R-3/1 and are working as regular drivers under the respondents. 7(ii). Pursuant to the issuance of Advertisement dated 17.06.2015 and the commencement of selection process w.e.f. 05.08.2015, the respondent No.2 prepared a list of eligible candidates vide Annexure A-4 of OBC-UR category, consisting of 09 candidates, which included the petitioner at Serial No.8 in said list. Based on the Eligibility List of OBC- UR category candidates, the Respondent No.2 issued a Letter dated 13.08.2015 Annexure A-5, directing the petitioner to appear for personal interview along with relevant original documents on 27.08.2015. Perusal of Envelope [Annexure A-6] sent to the petitioner, on the face of it, indicates that this Letter was dispatched by the General Post Office, Shimla on 17.08.2015. Once, the Letter dated 13.08.2015 [Annexure A-5], was dispatched by General Post Office Shimla on 17.08.2015 [Annexure A-6] then, in case the said Interview Letter reached the petitioner on 27.08.2015 after the date of interview, therefore, in such an eventuality no fault is attributable to the State Authorities. Once, the Letter dated 13.08.2015 [Annexure A-5], was dispatched by General Post Office Shimla on 17.08.2015 [Annexure A-6] then, in case the said Interview Letter reached the petitioner on 27.08.2015 after the date of interview, therefore, in such an eventuality no fault is attributable to the State Authorities. Further, it is the admitted case of the petitioner in Para 6(a), (v) & (vi), that the Interview Letter dated 13.08.2015 was dispatched by General Post Office, Shimla on 17.08.2015 and was delivered to the petitioner on 27.08.2015 [Annexure A-5 and Annexure A-6]. 7(iii). The above plea of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, alleging unfairness on the part of the State Authorities is devoid of any merit, for the reason, firstly, the State Authorities had sent the Interview Letter dated 13.08.2015 for dispatch to General Post Office Shimla on 13.08.2015, which was dispatched on 17.08.2015 by postal authorities [Annexure A-6]; and secondly, it is the case of the petitioner that the Interview Letter dated 13.08.2015 was dispatched by General Post Office on 17.08.2025 [Annexure A-6] and was received on 27.08.2025; and thirdly, the factum as to whether the transmission of letter was delayed by postal authorities or whether the delayed receipt of letter was attributable to the petitioner cannot be adjudicated upon in these proceedings and that too behind the back of postal authorities, who have not been impleaded as party-respondents in instant proceedings; and fourthly, once the letter dated 13.08.2015 was dispatched on 17.08.2015 by General Post Office, Shimla and was delivered to the petitioner on 27.08.2015, then, the State Authorities cannot be penalized and inaction can be gathered for delayed dispatch or delayed transmission or delayed delivery of the said letter by the postal authorities on 27.08.2015; and fifthly, for fault of the postal authorities no directions can be passed against the State Authorities; and sixthly, the non-selection of petitioner for his non-appearance in interview due to delayed receipt of letter on 27.08.2015 by postal authorities can only give a cause for damages; and lastly, the non-selection took place in August, 2015 whereas the instant petition was filed on 7.6.2018 after about three years, which is barred by limitation under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunal Act. Challenge to state claim is liable to be turned down for the reason that challenge to non-selection or a similar claim in service matters is to be preferred within six months to one year, in terms of the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy versus The State Of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 that the Original Application filed beyond the statutory period of limitation under Section 21 of Administrative Tribunals Act was liable to be dismissed, when the cause accrued on date of his non-selection and selection of respondents 3 to 5 on 29.08.2015 [Annexure R-1]. 7(iv). In Union of India and others versus C. Girija and others (2019) 15 SCC 633 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with similar facts and held as under: 16. On the proposition as noticed above, it is clear that the claim of the applicant for inclusion of her name in the panel, which was issued on 09.01.2001 and for the first time was raked up by her, by filing representation on 25.09.2007, i.e., after more than 06 and half years. The claim of inclusion in the panel had become stale by that time and filing of representation will not give any fresh cause of action. Thus, mere fact that representation was replied by Railways on 27.12.2007, a stale claim shall not become a live claim. Both Tribunal and High Court did not advert to this important aspect of the matter. It is further to be noted from the material on record that after declaration of panel on 09.01.2001, there were further selection under 30% promotion by LDCE quota, in which the applicant participated. In selection held in 2005 she participated and was declared unsuccessful. With regard to her non-inclusion in panel in 2005 selection, she also filed O.A. No. 629 of 2006 before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. After participating in subsequent selections under 30% quota and being declared unsuccessful, by mere filing representation on 27.09.2007 with regard to selection made in 2001, the delay and laches shall not be wiped out. 7(v). In Chief Executive Officer and others versus S.Lalitha and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 916, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealt with the period of limitation and held as under: 37. 7(v). In Chief Executive Officer and others versus S.Lalitha and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 916, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealt with the period of limitation and held as under: 37. Both fora, i.e., the Tribunal as well as the High Court, did not rule on the objection of maintainability of the O.A. despite such objection being sound. The reasons that we have assigned would lead to the irresistible conclusion that the O.A. was time-barred and should not have been entertained by the Tribunal. The High Court too erred in law by failing to entertain the challenge to the Tribunal’s order on the specious ground that the decision in B.D. Kadam (supra) covered the issue without, however, examining whether the O.A. was maintainable.” In backdrop of the above legal matrix, the Original Application filed beyond the period of limitation cannot sustain and the same is dismissed on this ground also. 8. Even the non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator against 3-OBC-UR posts does not suffer from infirmity or illegality, when the petitioner had lower merit with 40 marks, whereas, the respondents 3 to 5 had higher merit with 49 marks. Once the selection has been made by a duly constituted Selection Committee, then, the selection/recommendation of Respondents 3 to 5 as Driver-cum-Pump Operator on the basis of Interview held on 17.08.2015 and the Final Result declared on 29.08.2015 [Annexure R-1] does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. Moreover, once the members of Selection Committee have not been impleaded, therefore, the contention that Selection Committee was biased, cannot be gone into, behind their back, in these proceedings. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 9. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed, in the following terms: (i). Non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Driver-cum-Pump Operator, does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity and the same is upheld; (ii). Selection of Respondents No. 3 to 5 as Drivers-cum-Operators, against OBC-UR posts, on contract basis, due to higher overall merit vis-à-vis the lower merit of petitioner in August, 2015 and their subsequent regularization on 18.04.2019 is upheld; (iii). Allegations qua delayed transmission or delayed receipt of letter by postal authorities and/or by State Authorities, if any, being disputed facts cannot be gone into in absence of postal authorities; (iv). Costs made easy for respective parties. Allegations qua delayed transmission or delayed receipt of letter by postal authorities and/or by State Authorities, if any, being disputed facts cannot be gone into in absence of postal authorities; (iv). Costs made easy for respective parties. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition stands disposed of alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.