( 2026:HHC:7503 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.650 of 2019 Decided on: 17thMarch, 2026 Som Prakash Sharma ...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.Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Amandeep Sharma, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge(Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondents be directed to promote him w.e.f. 23.12.1982 as Deputy Ranger, with all benefits of further promotion as Rangers etc. The petition has been filed before this Court on 19.10.2011. 2. The petitioner has placed on record order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed by respondent No.2, whereby one Shri Hari Ram, who had not appeared in the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2026:HHC:7503 ) 2 interview, had been appointed as Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 23.02.1982. 3. The petitioner has averred in the petition that the petitioner had appeared in the interview along-with aforesaid Hari Ram and respondent No.4 namely Shri Amar Lal Bhatia, who belonged to reserved category. However, the petitioner was not selected, though he was having 415 marks in the Matriculation, whereas respondent No.4 had secured 39% marks. The candidates, who had even less than 41% marks were selected in the interview. 4. It has further been averred in the petition that the marks obtained in matriculation examination were the sole criteria for selection and appointment as Deputy Ranger in 1982 interview and since the petitioner had secured 41% marks in matriculation, as is evident from Annexure P-1 and respondent No.4 had secured 39% marks, then, the petitioner ought to have been considered and appointed w.e.f. 23.12.1982 as Deputy Ranger. Nothing has been stated in the petition that why the petitioner did not approach this Court earlier when he was allegedly denied the appointment to the post of Deputy Ranger in the year 1982. ( 2026:HHC:7503 ) 3 5. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply to the petition and took objection that the petitioner along-with Amar Nath Bhatia, was interviewed by the Selection Committee, but both of them could not found their place in the select list, when the result of interview of all Forest Circles was declared at the State level. So far as Hari Ram is concerned, who was not interviewed by the Selection Committee, was appointed as Deputy Ranger, as per direction on his representation being decided by the Department, on the direction of this Court. 6. Respondent No.4 filed separate reply and has submitted that percentage of marks obtained in the matriculation was not the sole criteria and further he has unnecessarily been dragged into the litigation by arraying him as respondent No.4. A specific objection has been taken in the reply that writ petition has been instituted after a period 28 years, since the interviews were conducted in the year 1982, for the post of Deputy Ranger and further respondent No.4 has now been superannuated from the post of Range Forest Officer in the year 2009. 7. I have heard Mr.Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr.Surya Chauhan, Advocate ( 2026:HHC:7503 ) 4 and Mr.Amandeep Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State and also perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had also appeared along-with respondent No.4 in the year 1982 for appointment to the post of Deputy Ranger. No doubt, the respondent-State has not taken any objection with respect to delay and laches, but this Court cannot ignore the same, since the petitioner has not offered any explanation in not approaching this Court within a reasonable time. The present petition has been instituted before this Court on 19.10.2011 and there is neither any representation having ever been made by the petitioner, being placed on record before approaching this Court, nor there is any explanation. The petition is hit by the principle of delay and laches. 9. So far as the orders regarding appointment of Hari Ram, the then Forest Guard is concerned, as per office order dated 02.03.2010 (Annexure P-2), he had filed an Original Application in the year 2001, wherein, he had claimed the relief to appoint him as Deputy Ranger, when the other persons, who were interviewed on 29/30.12.1978 and 12/13.04.1982 against direct recruitment of Deputy Rangers, were offered the appointment. Since the said person was ( 2026:HHC:7503 ) 5 vigilant regarding his rights and had approached the Tribunal well in time and this Court had directed the respondents to decide the representation as per judgment dated 21.10.2009, passed in CWP(T) No.7903 of 2008 (Annexure P-3) as is evident from a perusal of office order dated 02.03.2010, no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the said order. 10. No doubt, the respondents had admitted in the reply that the petitioner had stood first amongst the departmental candidates interviewed at Bilaspur Forest Circle, as is evident form Annexure R-II, but when the result was compiled at State level, he could not found his place in the select list as the Departmental candidates from other Forest Circles secured more marks in the interview, than the petitioner. 11. Since the petitioner has failed to explain the delay in approaching this Court as well as the fact that the petitioner could not found his place in the merit list of the Departmental candidates at State level, the petition fails on both counts. 12. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed both on account of delay and laches as well as on merits. ( 2026:HHC:7503 ) 6 13. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) March 17, 2026 Judge (naveen)