IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 3043 of 2024 Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Gulshan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) & Anr. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. None for respondent No. 2. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) The stated facts of the case and pleading made by the respective parties are that respondent No. 1/Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) on behalf of outsourced agency/ respondent No. 2/M.S. Services Private Limited, issued an advertisement dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-11), thereby calling for Expression of Interest for the outsourced post of Library Assistant (Annexure P-11) annexed with rejoinder filed by the petitioner. Petitioner herein who has been earlier working as Assistant Librarian w.e.f. 20.03.2014 till 12.10.2022 in Government Degree College, Una (H.P) also applied for the post in question. Vide communication dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P-1), Expression of Interest for the post of -2- Assistant Librarian, in terms of advertisement dated 15.07.2022 was issued, wherein petitioner alongwith other three candidates was shortlisted for the post in question. Vide an e-mail dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-2) respondent No. 2, issued an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Library Assistant at Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Una /respondent No. 1. Besides the e- mail an appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) also came to be issued by respondent No. 2/ M.S. Services Private Ltd. 2. Though in terms of aforesaid e-mail and appointment letter, petitioner gave his joining dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-5), but before same could be accepted, an e-mail dated 17.08.2022 came to be addressed to the petitioner by the respondent No. 2, whereby it was informed that the appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P2) stands cancelled. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceeding, praying therein the following main reliefs: “A. That the impugned action of respondents to cancel the appointment of petitioner, vice communicated dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-6), may kindly be held bad and illegal as such the same may be quashed and set aside, and further the petitioner may kindly be allowed to join his services from the date of submission of his joining report dated 17.08.2022 in respondent institute for all intent and purposes. -3- B. That the respondents may kindly be directed to count the services of petitioner from the date of submission of his joining report dated 17.08.2022 for all intents and purposes and further petitioner may kindly be entitled for all consequential benefits.” 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Kush Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that once pursuant to appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P3), petitioner had joined against the post in question, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to cancel his appointment. He further submitted that after cancellation of appointment of petitioner, petitioner has given appointment to third person on temporary basis. He submitted that it is the well settled law that a temporary employee cannot be replaced by an another temporary employee. He further submitted that though appointment letter, in the case at hand, has been claimed to issued by respondent No. 2 but for all intents and purposes petitioner was offered appointment by respondent No.1 and as such, the present petition is maintainable. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1, vehemently argued that Expression of Interest vide an advertisement dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) was though invited by respondent No. 1, but same was called on behalf of -4- respondent No. 2 i.e., outsourced agency. He submitted that appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner was withdrawn on the basis of verification of documents which during scrutiny were not found to be correct. Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1, further submitted that the present petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner was offered appointment by the outsourced agency. He further submitted that otherwise also the present petition deserves outright dismissal on the ground of delay and latches because cancellation of appointment was made through the communication/ e-mail dated 17.08.2022, whereas petitioner has approached this Court, after 1½ years and no plausible explanation has been rendered on his behalf qua an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. Having heard, learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that though Expression of Interest dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P11) was issued by respondent No. 1, but it has been specifically written in the same that same is issued for and on behalf of respondent No. 2 i.e. an outsourced agency. Appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), pursuant to selection of the petitioner was also -5- issued by respondent No. 2/outsourced agency, specifically stating therein that employment of the petitioner is temporary and it can be withdrawn at any time. Though, prima facie, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable for the reason that appointment letter herein has been issued by respondent No.2/ outsourced agency but having taken note of judgment dated 24.01.2025, passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 2625-2627 of 2025, titled S. Sobha Vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., wherein it has been held that a body, public or private, should not be categorized as “amenable” or “not amenable” to writ jurisdiction. The most important and vital consideration should be the “function” test as regards the maintainability of a writ petition. As per aforesaid judgment, if a public duty or public function is involved, any body, public or private, concerned connected with that duty or function, would be subject to judicial scrutiny under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not see any reason to go into the question of maintainability. 7. However, having taken note of the fact that an appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), issued by respondent No. 2 was cancelled vide a communication dated 17.08.2022, this Court is persuaded to consider and examine the plea -6- of delay and latches taken at the behest of respondents. After cancellation of appointment letter dated 11.08.2022 (Annexure P-3), petitioner has approach this Court, in the instant proceedings after inordinate delay of 1½ years and no plausible explanation has been rendered on record. Mr. Kush Sharma, while referring to the averments contain in of the petition submitted that since mother in law of the petitioner had suffered fracture of both the legs and there was no one to take care of her, therefore, petitioner could not approach competent Court of law within a reasonable time, but afore explanation cannot be said to plausible ground for condoning the delay. There is nothing on record suggestive of fact that apart from petitioner there was none to take care of his mother in law. Had petitioner himself suffered injury and on that account he was incapacitated, this Court would have yet accepted his prayer for condonation of delay but certainly on the ground explanation rendered on record with regard to illness of his mother in law, delay in approaching the competent Court of law cannot be condoned. Moreover, this Court finds that appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioner by respondent No.2 was cancelled within a period of 04 days on the ground that during verification certain documents were not found to be genuine. Though, while referring two documents adduced on record (Annexures P7 & P8). Mr. Kush Sharma, learned -7- counsel representing the petitioner, attempted to argue that second document which was otherwise not required to be adduced on record was submitted within 10 days of issuance of appointment letter but such fact itself suggest that documents submitted at first instance by the petitioner were not found to be genuine. Leaving everything aside, this Court is of the view that petitioner remained silent for 1½ years for no justifiable reasons and now, it would not be appropriate or in the interest of justice, to issue the direction to respondents to re- engage the petitioner, on the basis appointment letter issued by respondent No. 2. i.e. outsourced agency. 8. Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, learned counsel representing respondent No. 1, states that till date no person has been appointed as Assistant Librarian and as and when new process will be initiated, the petitioner can also apply for the same. 9. Consequently, in view of above, this Court finds no merit in the case at hand and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, this Court hopes and trust that as and when new process for appointment of Assistant Librarian is initiated by respondent No.1 or services of the Assistant Librarian are required, candidature of the petitioner, if submitted shall be considered sympathetically, taking note of the fact that for getting the job in question petitioner had -8- resigned from Government College, Una, where he was working for more than 08 years. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. September 15, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), Shamsh Tabrez Judge