IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8132/2022 Decided on: 09.09.2026 Pyar Singh …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL & Ors. .…Respondents. ……………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Bonit Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. A.K. Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. V.S. Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1 & 2. Ms. Nandita Thakur, Advocate vice Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Respondent No.3 filed the reply stating therein that though the name of the petitioner was nominated for the post of Lineman to respondent No.1, the same was with clear rider that it would be subject to verification of petitioner’s documents by the employer, as it is the employer who is the final authority for determining the eligibility. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 2. Reply is stated to have been filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, however, the same is not on record, a copy whereof was made available for perusal, pleading therein that the certificates produced by the petitioner reflected that he had passed ITI Electrical with the duration mentioned as 2 years. This qualification, as per the prevailing Recruitment and Promotion Rules, does not fulfil the prescribed technical eligibility criteria for the post of Lineman, which is Matric with ITI certificate in Wireman/Electrician trade or Matric with 3 years diploma in Electrical Engineering. Therefore, the petitioner was found ineligible for the post in question. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their reply(s), learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the instant petition. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 9th September, 2026(rohit)