IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.12333 of 2026 Decided on 23th July 2026 Yash Pal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shivani Priya, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No. 506 of 2024 and 34 of 2025 qua the petitioner also. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to revise the merit list and selection list relating to Himachal Pradesh Administrative and Allied Services Examination, 2013 in accordance with the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Division Bench and to extend benefit of revised merit list to the petitioner also. 2 iii. Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the revised merit/select list and determine his entitlement to selection and appointment; iv. Direct the respondents to grant appointment to the appropriate service/post together with with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority, notional pay fixation, increments, promotion- related benefits and all other service benefits to the petitioner.” 3. This Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner on account of his own acts of omission and commission, as also delay and laches. 4. The petitioner is seeking the benefit of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 506 of 2024 and 34 of 2025, decided on 29.05.2026. The adjudications made by the Hon’ble Division Bench relate to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative and Allied Services Examination of 2013. While passing the said judgment, Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to confine the relief to the parties before it. 5. Now herein, the petitioner before this Court, though was a party to the writ petition which was dismissed, but, he chose not to assail the same by way of a Letters Patent Appeal, 3 meaning thereby that he acquiesced to the judgment that was passed at least as far as he is concerned in the writ petition. 6. That being the case and further in light of the fact that the Hon’ble Division Bench has been pleased to confine the relief granted in the Letters Patent Appeal to the parties before it, so that the adjudication therein does not open a Pandora’s box, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 23, 2026 (Vinod)