Disposed¶19

Jyoti v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC7 Jul 2026CMP.M/937/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court; LPA 395/2026; CMP(M) 937/2026; Jyoti v. State of H.P.; condonation of delay 15 days; appeal disposed as not pressed; appeal infructuous; fresh cause of action; fresh advertisement and fresh selection pursuant to order 09.12.2025 in CWP No. 15563 of 2024; appellant not called for interview; liberty to challenge appointment of respondent No. 3 Smt. Chandresh Kumari in accordance with law; recruitment/service appointment dispute.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 15-day filing delay; appeal disposed of as not pressed with liberty reserved to the appellant to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 3-Smt. Chandresh Kumari in accordance with law; pending application(s) disposed of. ¶19

Jyoti Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the nominal delay of 15 days in filing the appeal should be condoned (via CMP(M) No. 937 of 2026). +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The nominal delay of 15 days in filing the appeal is condoned, keeping in view the averments in the application supported by the applicant's affidavit.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondents, in pursuance of the order dated 09.12.2025 in CWP No. 15563 of 2024, issued a fresh advertisement and selected respondent No. 3-Smt. Chandresh Kumari, a fresh cause of action arises and the present appeal has become infructuous.

¶18

Key takeaways

The appeal is disposed of as not pressed, with liberty reserved to the appellant to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 3-Smt. Chandresh Kumari in accordance with law; pending application(s) also stand disposed of.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla (07.07.2026) — CMP(M) No. 937 of 2026 & LPA No. 395 of 2026 (Jyoti v. State of H.P. & Ors.), G. S. Sandhawalia, CJ (oral judgment authored) and Bipin C. Negi, J. The nominal delay of 15 days in filing the appeal stood condoned and CMP(M) No. 937 of 2026 was disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellant did not press the LPA, submitting that in pursuance of the order passed on 09.12.2025 in CWP No. 15563 of 2024 ('Jyoti vs. State of H.P. & Ors.') the respondents had issued a fresh advertisement and selected respondent No. 3-Smt. Chandresh Kumari, and that the appellant had not been called for interview. The Bench held that a fresh cause of action had thereby arisen and the appeal had become infructuous; the appeal was disposed of as not pressed, while leaving it open to the appellant to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 3 afresh in accordance with law. Pending application(s) were also disposed of.

Jyoti v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meena Arora Vs State of Hp and Others

Manohar Lal Vs Hrtc and Anr.

Usha Kunwar and Anr. Vs State Bank of India and Ors.

Kedar Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kailash Chand and Another Vs State of Hp and Others

The Manager Nuvision Commercial Escort Services Firm Vs Court on Its Own Motion and Others