2026:HHC:31925 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP-T No.199 of 2020 and CWPOA No.1107 of 2020 Decided on: 29.07.2026 Arjun Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Kul Bhushan Khajuria and Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vishav Deep Sharma, Additional Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The petitioner by way of present petition has challenged the appointment of respondent No.6 for the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (in short ‘PAT’) on the ground that he had forged IRDP certificate. 2. The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the applications were invited for filling up the posts of ‘PAT’ in Government Primary School Jeoripattan under Gram Panchayat Talli, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, (H.P.) and the petitioner along with other candidates appeared in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31925 interview conducted by respondent No.5, being the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Respondent No.6 was selected for the post of ‘PAT’. As per the result of the interview (Annexure A-2), the petitioner had scored 55.8 marks, whereas respondent No.6 scored 56.4 marks. The grounds which have been taken in the petition are that respondent No.6 had furnished the certificate of IRDP which was false/tempered one, which fact came to the notice of the petitioner only after receipt of the information under the Right to Information Act (in short ‘RTI Act’) from the Gram Panchayat Talli, where serial number of IRDP certificate has been issued in the name of Smt. Kashmira Devi, widow of Shri Shyam Lal. It has also been averred that respondent No.6 was not eligible to hold the post of ‘PAT’ and thus, he was wrongly selected for the post of ‘PAT’. It has further been averred that the marks of 10+2 qualification were to be awarded taking 50% of the total percentage and respondent No.6 had scored 245 marks out of 650 marks in the Prabhakar, i.e. 37.6% in total, 50% of which comes to 18.8 marks, whereas he was awarded 25.6 marks. Therefore, he has prayed for quashing his appointment and offer him appointment, since he was next in the merit list. 3 2026:HHC:31925 3. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply to the petition and raised preliminary submissions that the original application filed against them is not maintainable because as per the information received from respondent No.3, application from all the eligible candidates for the post of ‘PAT’ was invited by the Selection Committee for some schools falling under the Education Block Swarghat including Government Primary School, Jeoripattan, which falls under Gram Panchayat Talli, Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur (HP). The interviews were conducted under the chairmanship of respondent No.5 and on the basis of the documents produced by the petitioner as well as marks awarded by the Selection Committee, respondent No.6 was selected on merit basis for the post of ‘PAT’ in Government Primary School Jeoripattan, District Bilaspur. As per the select list, respondent No.6 had secured 56.4 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured 55.8 marks. Therefore, respondent No.6 being top in merit was offered appointment by the Selection Committee. It has been averred that the interview for the post of ‘PAT’ was held in the year 2006 and the petitioner has filed the original application in the year 2016, i.e. after a period of 10 years and hence the present 4 2026:HHC:31925 petition is barred by delay and laches. 4. The petitioner did not file rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 3. However, he has placed on record the termination order of respondent No.6 by way of an application. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 6. It is admitted fact that the selection for the post of ‘PAT’ was held in the year 2006 and the original application has been filed in the year 2016 which has not been registered as present petition. As per the provisions of Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short ‘the Act’), a limitation has been provided for institution of the application in case an employee is aggrieved by the action of the authorities. In the present case, the petitioner had filed the original application before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) on 30.12.2016. As per Section 21 of the Act, Tribunal shall not admit an application, if the same is not filed within one year from the date on which final order has been passed, or where a representation is made; and a period of six months had expired thereafter without any 5 2026:HHC:31925 final order having been passed, the application must be filed within one year from the date of expiry of the said period. In the present case, while preferring the original application, in the column of limitation, the petitioner has only averred that the application is within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 21 of the Act. The petitioner when initially filed the original application, no application was appended for condonation of delay in filing the original application. However, later on an application for condonation of delay in filing the original application was filed stating that the petitioner had come to know about the irregularity committed by the committee only after receipt of the requisite information under the RTI, which was supplied to him on 05.10.2016. Thereafter, he had immediately filed the original application. However, said plea cannot be accepted by taking the date of knowledge from the date of receipt of the information under RTI. If this plea is accepted, then every person, who is not appointed, will apply for the information under the RTI at his sweet will and start claiming that he may be offered the appointment. If the petitioner was so concerned about his job, he ought to have applied for the information under the Right to 6 2026:HHC:31925 Information Act immediately after the interview, since the RTI Act was in force at the relevant time. 7. No doubt, the services of respondent No.6 have been terminated as per the documents placed on record by the petitioner, but that does not give any right to him to be appointed against the said post, especially when he did not come to the court immediately after selection of respondent No.6. This Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to advance substantial justice can entertain the petition, but at the same time, the Court cannot ignore the huge delay of 10 years in approaching the court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. Since there is no plausible explanation in the application for condonation of delay in filing the original application by the petitioner and further the plea taken that he came to know about the irregularity committed by the committee after receipt of the information under the RTI Act cannot be accepted. Thus, the application for condonation of delay as well as the main petition is hit 7 2026:HHC:31925 by the principle of delay and laches and as such both are dismissed. 8. Consequently, in view of the fact that the petitioner did not come to the Court within a reasonable time, the application for condonation of delay in filing the original application is dismissed so also the petition on the ground of delay and laches. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 29 th July , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge