2026:HHC:4554 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.836 of 2025 Decided on : 25.02.2026 Kaushal Chander ...Appellant Versus State of HP and Others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Prem Prakash Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondent(s) : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) By way of the present appeal, a challenge has been laid to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No.10975 of 2024, titled Sanjay Kumar and Others Vs. State of HP and Another, was dismissed on 16.10.2024. 2. In sum and substance, the appellant’s claim was that he be treated, as having been appointed in the year 2002, with all consequential benefits. The said claim was based on the ground that he had participated in the process of TGT in the year 2002, however, the process was not taken to its logical end. Thereafter, the posts of TGTs were advertised in the year 2005 and appellant was selected and 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 2026:HHC:4554 appointed in June, 2006. 3. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition with the observation that the case is being filed at a belated stage, as the appellant was satisfied with his appointment, which was offered to him in the subsequent process in the year 2006, since the writ petition apparently was filed in the year 2024. 4. The reference given of Satish Kumar’s case was distinguished on the ground that his case for appointment was on the basis of the process initiated in the year 2002 and therefore, there is no similarity. 5. We are not in a position to accept the argument as such that only on account of having participated earlier in a selection process in the year 2002, the benefits can be given from the same year. 6. It is settled principle that there is no right of appointment and only a right of consideration, in case his 2002 selection process was not taken to its logical end. The appellant had not agitated at any point of time for the said process and had not sought any mandamus against the State to complete the selection process of 2002 and willingly participated in the subsequent advertisement, which was issued in 2004/05 and then appointed in 2006, he cannot raise any grievance after a period of 18 years. If any such benefit is also to be granted, it will open a pandora’s box, as seniority could not have been -3- 2026:HHC:4554 given without impleading any other private respondents. 7. It is well settled principle laid down by the Supreme Court in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 2271, 1975 SCR (2) 356 that all service matters have to be raked up at the earliest, preferably within six months. 8. Thus, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in any manner in dismissing the writ petition and we do not find any plausible reason to take a different view. Resultantly, the Letters Patent Appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 25th February, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)