2025:HHC:4001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.41 of 2025 Decided on: 27.02.2025 __________________________________________________________ Subhadra Devi ...Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the appellant: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge, whereby Civil Writ Petition No.13681 of 2024, filed by the appellant was dismissed on 05.12.2024, having been rendered infructuous. 2. Learned Single Judge noticed that recruitment process for the post of Past Champion Athlete [Coach] in the Discipline of Boxing had 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:4001 - 2 - been cancelled on account of some deviation in the recruitment process and therefore, the walk-in interview conducted on 27.08.2024 could not be acted upon. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record subsequent letter issued on 24.01.2025 [Annexure A-2] to the appellant that fresh advertisement was issued thereafter on 09.12.2024, after order of the learned Single Judge in which she had been called for document verification on 30.01.2025, on account of which she has been shortlisted. 4. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on account of another recruitment process, some other person has been duly considered and appointed against the said post to be advertised. However, the said person appointed has neither been made party nor any application has been filed to implead the said person, as the writ petition was filed prior to the date of interview. However, the said person would be affected, therefore, we are of the 2025:HHC:4001 - 3 - considered opinion that no effective orders can be passed in Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The said process of selection has given a fresh cause of action to the present appellant to challenge the same in accordance with law. 6. Needless to say that we have not observed anything on merits of the case and it is open to the appellant as such to plead the background of the case, as acted upon, which might be adverse to the appellant in order to put-forth her case afresh, in case, the appellant so desires to challenge the said process of recruitment. 7. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that due to the subsequent events as such and the rights of a third person having come into play, it would not be appropriate for us to entertain the present Letters Patent Appeal and pass any orders at the back of the selected candidate. Even otherwise, fresh pleadings would be required to be put-forth by the appellant now to build the case as has been noticed above. 2025:HHC:4001 - 4 - 8. Resultantly, we dispose of the present Letters Patent Appeal as having been rendered infructuous with the aforesaid liberty. 9. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge February 27, 2025 [Bhardwaj/Chiranjeev]