IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. : 2241 of 2019 Decided on : 10.04.2026 Shareshtha Devi .…Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and Anr.. .…Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. P.P. Singh, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3/State. : Mr. Shagun Sharma, Advocate, vice Mr. Arsh Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.4. : Mr. Mukesh Kaushal, Senior Assistant is present alongwith record. Bipin C. Negi, Judge (oral) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the selection of the respondent No. 4 for the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:11811 ) post of Peon under the category of ST (BPL). ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Peon under the category of ST(BPL).” 2. The brief facts giving rise to the case at hand are that an advertisement for the recruitment of 45 posts of peons on daily wage basis was published in the daily newspaper i.e. Divya Himachal on 31.08.2018. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner and private respondent No.4 had participated in the selection process. They had applied under the Scheduled Tribe (BPL category). 3. Suffice it to state that vide government notifications dated 17.04.2017 and 25.04.2017, interviews for the post of Class-III and Class-IV had been done away with. The selection for Class-III and Class-IV posts were to be made either on the basis of the merit of a written examination or prescribed parameters followed by evaluation. Insofar as the prescribed parameters are concerned, the original documents were required to be verified/considered before approving the appointment. In this respect, a reference can be made to Annexure R-4 i.e. office order dated 06.08.2018 appended along with the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. From the perusal of the same, it is evident that in the case at hand a Committee had been constituted for 3 ( 2026:HHC:11811 ) evaluating/verifying the documents/testimonials of all the candidates concerned. Subsequent thereto, the Committee was re-constituted vide office order dated 20.03.2019 (at page-46 of the paper book). 4. Thereafter based on the scrutiny of the application forms submitted by the candidates, an evaluation was got done based on the certificates appended along with and based on the same a merit list was prepared. The shortlisted candidates were called for each category of post. The merit list in the case at hand for Scheduled Tribe (BPL category) has been placed on record (at page No. 52 of the paper book). From the perusal of the same, it is evident that the private respondent No. 4 had secured 51.01 marks post evaluation. The petitioner had secured 43.37 marks post evaluation. Subsequent thereto for verification of original documents/testimonials, three dates i.e. 28.03.2019, 29.03.2019 and 30.03.2019 had been fixed. Letters in this regard had been issued to the respective candidates. 5. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the sole contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the private respondent i.e. respondent No. 4 had been called for verification of documents on 30.03.2019. It is further contended that in the call letter, so sent, it had been made absolutely clear that failure on the part of the 4 ( 2026:HHC:11811 ) candidate to appear on the said date would result in the cancellation of the candidature. Based on the aforesaid, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 had not put in appearance on 30.03.2019, but had appeared on 02.04.2019 and despite the clear embargo stated supra mentioned in the call letter issued to respondent No.4, dated 11.03.2019, Annexure R-6, appended alongwith the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, the candidature of respondent No. 4 had been considered. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent contends that the call letter dated 11.03.2019, Annexure R-6 (at page 49 of the paper book) had been received by him on 01.04.2019. In order to substantiate this fact, a seal was got appended from the concerned Post Master. Based on the aforesaid, the respondent No. 4 immediately rushed to the concerned Directorate at Shimla, wherein he made a representation i.e. Annexure R-5 appended along with the reply filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 (at page 47 of the paper book). The official respondents in their reply filed to the writ petition specifically preliminary submission No. 6 have categorically stated that after due verification of the date of stamp affixed by the Postal Authorities on the call letter dated 11.03.2019 found the 5 ( 2026:HHC:11811 ) contention of respondent No. 4 to be genuine, hence allowed the private respondents request and thereafter checked his original testimonials on 02.04.2019. 7. The affixation of the stamp and the note appended thereto by the Postal Authorities carries with it a presumption of regularity in terms of Section 114(e) of the erstwhile Evidence Act (now Section 119(e) of BSA). Moreover the official respondents have duly verified the date of the stamp affixed by the Postal Authorities on the call letter dated 11.03.2019. In the aforesaid backdrop, the contention of the private respondent needs to be accepted as it is both probable and truthful. 8. Other than the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that on perusal of Annexure R-5, it is evident that the call letter had been received by the petitioner on 02.04.2019 and hence, it is impossible for the petitioner to have been present on the same day i.e. 02.04.2019 at Shimla. As has already been stated (supra) the stamp and note appended with the call letter dated 11.03.2019, Annexure R-6, carries with a presumption of regularity. 9. In the aforesaid factual matrix, the mentioning of a wrong date i.e. 02.04.2019 in the representation made by 6 ( 2026:HHC:11811 ) respondent No. 4, Annexure R-5, can easily be overlooked/ignored as a mere typographical error. 10. In this respect, a reference can be gainfully made to the authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Seema Kumari Sharma Vs. State of H.P. and Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 128, wherein the petitioner had claimed the benefit of belonging to IRDP family. The claim of belonging to IRDP family had not been substantiated by the petitioner therein before the authority, therefore, the claim in this respect had been denied, the writ petition preferred in the aforesaid backdrop had been dismissed by the High Court. The certificate of the petitioner belonging to IRDP family was produced before the Apex Court. The petitioner was permitted to do so at a highly belated stage. Further the Apex Court allowed the petition by holding that a failure to furnish the certificate along with the application did not disentitle the petitioner to claim the status of IRDP for consideration of award of marks. 11. In the case at hand, respondent No. 4 is far better placed than Seema Sharma (supra). 12. No other points urged. 13. In view of the reasons stated here above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. 7 ( 2026:HHC:11811 ) 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 10th April, 2026 (sushma)