IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.10390 of 2024 Decided on 21st May 2026 Ramesh Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- i) “That writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the respondent University not to select the candidate who did not appear in the interview i.e. respondent No.4 and make the selection out of six candidate who appeared before the Selection Committee in consonance with Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2 ii) Call for the records pertaining to the case at hand and call for CC TV footage of the candidates who entered the chamber of Vice Chancellor for interview for the one post of Assistant Professor Public Administration reserved for SC category.” 2. During the pendency of this petition, the services of the private respondent, who was appointed against the post in issue stood terminated as his documents were not found genuine. 3. In this backdrop, on 01.04.2026, this Court passed the order:- “Learned Counsel for them petitioner informs the Court that the services of the private respondent, who was selected against the post in issue, stand terminated on account of the fact that the documents which were submitted by him were not found to be genuine. He submits that the respondents be directed to have instructions as to why now appointment cannot be offered to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3 and directed to have instructions in this regard. List after three weeks.” 4. Thereafter, when instructions were handed over to the Court in terms of its order dated 01.04.2026, on 07.05.2026, this Court passed the following order:- 3 “Learned Counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has handed over instruction and perusal thereof demonstrates that in terms of the recommendations of the Selection Committee for the post in issue, the Committee recommended the name of Shri Vijay Singh only and no Waiting Panel indeed was prepared. Besides this, marks which were granted to the candidates by the Expert Panel, have also been made available for the perusal of the Court and the same demonstrate that whereas the selected candidate Vijay Singh had secured 62.77 marks out of 100, all other had secured less than 50 marks and as far as the petitioners herein are concerned, they scored 47.55 and 46.55 marks, respectively. The margin between the marks scored by the selected candidate and the petitioners is quite big and in these circumstances, firstly, in the absence of any Waiting Panel having been prepared by the Selection Committee and secondly, in light of difference of marks between selected candidate and the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to issue any direction to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioners, as this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice in case the post is filled afresh by the University. Now, on the request of learned Counsel for the petitioners, list on 21.05.2026.” 5. Today, though learned counsel for the petitioners again reiterated that the post be offered to the next in merit, but this Court is not inclined to do so. It is again observed that, whereas, the candidate who was selected had secured 62.77 marks out of 100, others including the petitioners secured marks less than 50 and the marks scored by the present 4 petitioners were 47.55 and 46.55 respectively out of 100. Besides this, no waiting panel was prepared by the Selection Committee and it is settled law that until and unless the rules prescribe for the preparation of a waiting list, the employer is not obliged to prepare any waiting list. 6. Herein, in the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out towards any rule or regulation in terms whereof the employer was obliged to prepare a waiting list. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vallampati Sathishy Babu versus State of Andhra Pradesh and others, (2022) 13 Supreme Court Cases 193, has held that a candidate can claim appointment to post which remains unfilled provided there is a provision for waiting list as per the statutory provisions. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar SEB versus Suresh Prasad, (2004) 2 SCC 681, has been pleased to hold that even in case, candidates selected for appointment have not joined, in the absence of any statutory rules to the contrary, employer is not bound to offer the untilled vacancy to the candidate next below in the merit list. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held in 5 this judgment that in the absence of any provision, the employer is not bound to prepare a waiting list in addition to the panel of selected candidates and appoint candidates from the waiting list. 8. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as nothing survives in the present petition and no direction can be issued to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioners, the same is dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 21, 2026 (Vinod)