IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No.238 of 2025 Decided on: 15.05.2025 Mansa Ram ......Appellant Versus State of H.P. & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Virender Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3./State G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.442 of 2025 For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA No.238 of 2025 2. Consideration is sought of the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.4715 of 2020, decided on 20.11.2024, whereby, the writ petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay that the petition was filed in the year 2020 after seven years, since the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? appointments to the respondents were offered in the year 2013. Learned counsel has accordingly argued that the R.T.I. Information, as such, was supplied later and, therefore, the petition could only be filed at a belated stage. 3. We have gone through the impugned order as such and noticed that the stand of the parties, including the petitioner himself, is that the procedure was followed for the issuance of the advertisement for the appointment to the posts of Pump Operators, whereby, 3 posts were advertised for the category of OBC. 4. The petitioner had appeared in the said test and his case is that he has got 30 marks in the Screening Test for the said posts was held on 07.04.2013, which are to be the maximum amongst the nine candidates. 5. The stand as such of the respondents was that the petitioner had also been put to viva voce and has not been found to be a suitable candidate for the post in question and the marks were awarded to the candidates as per the performance in the interview. 6. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the overall merit of the petitioner did not render him eligible for appointment even otherwise. 7. We have gone through the writ record and it transpires that as per the information obtained under the Right to Information Act by the petitioner himself, he secured 7 marks in the viva voce. The range of marks while being given to the candidates, was between 6 to 8 marks and, therefore, it cannot be said as such that there was any deliberate attempt by the Selection Committee as such to put the petitioner at the bottom of the select list. The other marks are on the basis of the marks of essential qualifications, marks of technical qualification, knowledge of custom, manner and dialect of H.P., wherein, also the range was from 6 to 8 marks and the petitioner secured 6.5 marks, whereas, another candidate had also got 6 marks. The petitioner secured 65.81 marks, whereas, the selected candidates 4 to 6 have got 69.32, 66.70 and 65.99 marks, respectively. 8. Thus, all the private respondents have secured overall higher merit, due to which, they were apparently selected. As such, neither allegation as such of mala fide nor any official has been impleaded in private capacity, nor any averment has been made regarding the Selection Committee being adverse to him or having any bias. 9. In such circumstances, it is apparent that it is not the issue of delay only which weighed with the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, but also the fact that the petitioner did not fall in the zone of Consideration as per merit. 10. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by learned Single Judge, specially keeping in view the issue of delay and also the merits. Selected candidates have got some vested rights after certain period of time and after seven years to rock the boat would be totally unjustified. 11. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice May 15, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma) (Mamta/Yashwant) Judge