IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 17094/2026 Decided on: 29.09.2026 Sonika Gupta …Petitioner Versus CSKHPKV .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken by the respondent-University for the post of Assistant Professor (Tea Economist), in reference to Advertisement No. 1/2018, dated 27.06.2018. Her candidature was rejected by the Screening Committee of the respondent-University on 19.11.2018. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition on 23.07.2026, seeking following substantive reliefs: - “(i) That the respondent University may be directed to quash and set aside impugned Annexure-P-9 whereby the Petitioner has been wrongly marked "not found suitable" and respondent University may further be directed to give her appointment as per the norms which were so fixed in selection process during the creation of the post. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 (ii) That the respondent University may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner from the date whereby other incumbents have been appointed under the same advertisement.” 2. Impugned Annexure P-8 (pages 147-148 of the paper book) is to the effect that candidature not only of the petitioner, but of seven other participants, was also rejected, as none of the candidates were found eligible as per the prescribed qualifications. The relevant portion of which reads as under: - “As per advertisement, the qualification for the post of Tea Economist is "M.Sc. having qualified NET in the concerned discipline". However, all the candidates who have applied for the said post are having degrees in Agricultural Economics. Hence, none of the candidate is found eligible as per prescribed qualification and nomenclature of the post.” 3. To a query of the Court about the petitioner raising a stale and belated claim, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been representing to the respondents during the years 2025 & 2026 for redressal of her grievance; Specific reference was made to representation dated 05.06.2026 (Annexure P-15) highlighting that no response thereto was received by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited attention to certain documents statedly obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act in the year 2025, more specifically, the ones appended at Annexure P-12 (page 197 of the paper book) and the office note (at page 236 of the paper book), to submit that, as per the 3 respondents themselves, the qualification/specialization for the post of Assistant Professor (Tea Economist), with Agriculture Economics, was neither approved by the Academic Council nor by the Board of Management. Petitioner has M.Sc & Ph.D Degree in Agricultural Economics and had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Tea Economist). Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the qualifications laid down in the advertisement by the respondents had not been approved by the Academic Council or by the Board of Management of respondent/University, then also, it does not give any right to the petitioner to seek acceptance of her candidature, as, in that eventuality too, the post will require to be advertised afresh in accordance with law. Be that as it may. The question raised by the Court to the petitioner has remained unanswered as to the delay and laches on her part in assailing the rejection of her candidature. Petitioner's candidature was rejected by the respondents in November 2018. The petitioner has taken eight years to assail the same. It has to be borne in mind that petitioner's candidature was rejected by the respondents for recruitment to a post advertised on 27.06.2018. Candidature, not only of the petitioner, but of seven others, was rejected on the same ground. The petitioner did not avail appropriate remedy against the rejection of her candidature 4 within reasonable time. Now, it is too late for her to turn the clock back to the year 2018. In view of above, I find no justification to entertain the writ petition at this belated stage. Petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 29th September, 2026(rohit)