( 2026:HHC:3386 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 2393 of 2025 Date of decision: 09.01.2026 Gulshan Kumar …Appellant Versus Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIT) & Anr. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Kush Sharma, Advocate. G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) For the averments made in the application, the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 33 of 2026 The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15.09.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 3043 of 2024, titled as Gulshan Kumar vs. Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIT) & Anr., whereby the petition stands dismissed on the ground that the writ court had been approached after 1 ½ years and it would not be appropriate to issue directions to respondents to re-engage the petitioner on the basis of the appointment letter issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. outsourced agency. 2 2. A perusal of the writ record would go on to show that challenge as such was made to the communication dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure P-6), wherein the appointment letter stands cancelled with immediate effect by respondent No. 2 i.e. M. S. Services Pvt. Ltd. 3. The grouse of the petitioner as such was that appointment letter had been issued on 11.08.2022 (Annexure P- 3), whereby he had been posted at Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Una as Library Assistant on consolidated salary of Rs. 17875/-. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had resigned from his earlier employment on 12.08.2022 and thereafter his joining as such was accepted on 17.08.2022 vide Annexure P-5, therefore, has been gravely prejudiced. 5. We are of the considered opinion that denial as such of entertaining the writ petition, on delay and laches, was justified in the given facts and circumstances as the writ Court has to be approached expeditiously. Even otherwise, we have serious doubt regarding the observations of the learned Single Judge that the writ petition was maintainable against outsourcing agency, who is the principal employer and not respondent No. 1. 6. Apparently, the appointment was in pursuance of the Expression of Interest for Outsourced Library Assistant as per the advertisement dated 15.07.2022 (Annexure P-11) by 3 respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 and the names of four candidates had been shortlisted. There is nothing to show that appointment was made by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge as such that the writ petition would be maintainable against outsourcing agency on account of public duty or public function on the basis of the judgment passed in Special Leave Petition(C) Nos. 2625- 2627 of 2025, titled as S. Shobha vs. Muthoot Finance Ltd., dated 24.01.2025. We have gone through the said judgment, wherein the Apex Court has rather upheld the order of the Division Bench by holding that the writ petition as such against the finance company would not be maintainable as it is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, rather it had laid the guidelines accordingly by holding that High Court had protected the interest of the parties by relegating the petitioner to have recourse to civil remedy before appropriate court. 7. Similarly, in the present case, has the petitioner any right as such, it would be a right of compensation against respondent No. 2, as such and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that non-entertainment of the petition on the ground of delay also was justified in the facts and circumstances. 4 8. It is settled principle that writ court could only entertain the petition if the party approachs the writ court within reasonable time, especially, as noticed in the present case which was against the case of alleged termination of services. 9. Resultantly, we do not find any plausible reason to entertain the present appeal, as there is no infirmity and perversity in the impugned judgment. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, so also pending applications, if any. (G. S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) 9th January, 2026(sanjeev) Judge