IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4646 of 2026 Decided on 22nd April, 2026 Shri Suresh Negi …Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh University …Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: M/s Babita Chauhan and M.A. Safee, Advocates. For the respondent: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That a writ in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be issued quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 (Annexure P-9) whereby the representation of the Petitioner has been rejected, being arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ii) That a writ in the nature of Mandamus may kindly be issued directing the Respondents to directing the Respondents to reckon the service of the Petitioner from the date of issuance of the appointment order dated 28.09.2016 for the purpose of regularization by condoning the joining period and to grant all consequential benefit and regularize his services w.e.f. October 2019 i.e. w.e.f. 25.10.2017 the date from which his counterparts have been regularized, alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. The impugned memorandum which is appended with the petition is Annexure P-9, dated 27.03.2023. 3. Upon a query put to the learned counsel as to how the petitioner explains delay and laches in approaching the Court after more than 3 years from the date of passing of the impugned order, learned counsel submitted that it is only in the year 2025 when the petitioner received information under Right to Information Act, he came to know of the date of dispatch of his appointment order. 4. This Court is of the considered view that this no explanation in the eyes of law. The petitioner has assailed Annexure P-9, dated 27.03.2023 by way of this petition. Annexure P-9 was issued by the Authority on a request made by the petitioner itself to the Authority. Copy thereof is duly endorsed to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he did not receive said copy. 5. Therefore, as the present petition is hit by gross delay and laches and as this Court does not finds any reason to allow the petitioner to assail the impugned order after three years of its having been passed, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 6. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 22, 2026 (Vinod)