Item No.D-4 Mohd. Sahil vs. State of H.P and others CMP(M) No. 1005 of 2025 and CMP Nos.13995 of 2025 in LPA No.157 of 2016 27.06.2025 Present: Mr. Adarsh K.Vashista, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. CMP No. 13995 of 2025 has been filed for restoring the present LPA, which was dismissed in default on 04.10.2019. There is an inordinate delay as such of 5 years’ and 2 months’ which is also sought to be condoned by filing CMP(M) No.1005 of 2023. 2. The Appeal was filed by another counsel, who had not appeared before the Court on that particular date. 3. Though, the writ petition was dismissed but the learned Single Judge had directed the State to consider the case of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of Lecturer, Commerce (School Cadre) as and when such a vacancy arose. The relevant part of the order reads as under: “That apart in spite of the aforesaid constraint and impediment besetting this Court to set aside the selection/appointment of Deepak Sharma in this writ petition, this Court would while refraining to accord the relief to the petitioner while setting aside the appointment of Deepak Sharma, respondent No.4, made in pursuance to the directions of this Court rendered in CWP No. 2457 of 2010, would qua him while treating it as a special case direct the respondents/State to consider his candidature for his being appointed to the post of lecturer commerce (school cadre) as and when such a vacancy arises. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly and the review petition No.10 of 2013 is dismissed. No costs. All pending applications also stand disposed of.” 4. It has now been brought to our notice that in pursuance of the said observations, the relief has already been granted and the petitioner was offered appointment in the year 2015. It is thus apparent that due to the said reason, the applicant himself lost interest in the litigation having secured the necessary relief. 5. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that no case is now made out to restore the present appeal. 6. It is in such circumstances, we also feel that the inordinate delay as such, in approaching this Court to set aside the order of dismissal in default, is also not liable to be condoned. 7. Resultantly, we dismiss both the applications for the reasons above. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice 27th June, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge