IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No. 605 of 2025 Decided on: 01.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Yash Pal ...Appellant. Versus Union of India and others ...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. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India [Senior Advocate] with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 2 and 3-State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] CMP(M) No.1217 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, duly supported by affidavit, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, delay of 49 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - 2. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 605 of 2025 3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.7861 of 2024, titled as Yash Pal versus Union of India and others, decided on 12.08.2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the challenge was to the result sheet of personal interview held on 12.06.2017 for the post of District Resource Person in Social Audit Unit. Resultantly, the writ petition filed after 7 years was held to be not maintainable in the absence of any cause of action and on account of lack of due diligence. The aspect of the rights of the parties whose right had accrued over the time was also kept in mind and also the fact that none of the selected candidates, as such, had been impleaded as respondents. 5. Counsel for the appellant has argued on the same line that the matter was pending before the Lokayukta and, therefore, the period was spent before the said authority, as such, had to be excluded as mentioned in the order passed by the Lokayukta, Himachal Pradesh - 3 - on 06.05.2024. 6. We are not in a position to agree with the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. It is a settled principle of law that on account of the principle of delay and laches a negligent litigant, as such, cannot be allowed to raise the issue of selection after a period of 7 years. Even the representation was filed before the Lokayukta only in the year 2023, and from the year 2017 there is no such tangible explanation apart from the fact that representations were made to several quarters. 7. The persons who have already been appointed would necessarily be called upon to face litigation at a belated stage after having served for 7 years, apart from the fact that at this point of time they have not been arrayed as party also and, therefore, it would be “rocking the boat,” as such, for them on account of the lack of diligence on the part of the appellant. 8. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of the writ Court has to be invoked at the earliest, particularly in service matters. 9. Reliance thus can be placed upon the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Marinmoy Maity Vs. Chanda Koley and others reported in AIR 2024 SC 2717, - 4 - wherein specifically the issue of delay and approaching the Writ Court has been elucidated and it has been held that the Writ Court should be approached at the earliest. 10. The law regarding the limitation aspect has not been specifically provided under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but the same had been laid down in P.S. Sadasivaswamy Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (1975) 1 SCC 152 regarding the necessity to approach the Writ Court at the earliest. 11. Accordingly, in view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgments referred to supra, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 12. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 1st September, 2025 [himani/shivender]