2025:HHC:24757 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3394 of 2019 Decided on: 29th July 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Akshay Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate (through V.C.) and Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S.Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner feels aggrieved against the selection process undertaken by the respondents for recruitment to the posts of Constables (Driver Male) in District Kangra in the year 2019. 2. Heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file. 3 Respondents issued a notification on 09.03.2019 for 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:24757 - 2 - categories wise filling up 29 (new) + 6 (left out) posts of Constables (Driver Male). Petitioner also applied for the posts reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) (Unreserved) (UR) Category in District Kangra. He participated in the selection process and was eventually called for interview. As against 35 advertised posts, 23 candidates succeeded in the written test and were called for interview. After interview, 18 candidates of different categories, were selected in all by the respondents including 5 from S.C. (UR) Category. All available 5 posts of SC (UR) Category were filled up Petitioner’s emphasis in the writ petition is on the selection and appointment of 5 candidates under the Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category. According to the petitioner, S/Sh. Rohit Kumar and Manjeet Singh, figuring at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 of the select list of Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category, had obtained more marks than the selected candidate in General (Unreserved) Category, they were thus required to shifted from Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category to the select list of General (Unreserved) Category. 2025:HHC:24757 - 3 - . Para-10 of the writ petition specifically pleads that one Sh. Mayank Sharma selected in the General (Unreserved) Category had scored 56.5 marks, whereas, S/Sh. Rohit Kumar and Manjeet Singh, figuring at Sr. Nos. 1 and 2 in the select list of Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) had scored more marks i.e. 60.5 and 57.67 marks, respectively, therefore, these two candidates selected as Scheduled Caste (Unreserved), were required to be shifted to the General (Unreserved ) Category list and consequently, petitioner, who had applied under Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category, was required to be included in the select list of Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category. 4 Since the respondents’ reply did not specifically answer the above assertions of the petitioner, they were directed to file supplementary affidavit on the aforesaid issue. Supplementary affidavits were accordingly filed by the respondents on 28.03.2025 and 02.06.2025. As per these supplementary affidavits, S/Sh. Rohit Kumar and Manjeet Singh could not be switched over to General (Unreserved) 2025:HHC:24757 - 4 - Category as they both had taken age concession and other relaxations available to reserve category candidates while appearing in the selection process for the posts in question against Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category. This factual assertion has not been disputed for the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner, therefore, for shifting of S/Sh. Rohit Kumar and Manjeet Singh from select list of Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category to that of General (Unreserved) Category, is not tenable. (refer:- Gaurav Pradhan & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors)2. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner made an andeavour to assert that respondents had advertised 29 + 6 posts of Constables (Driver Male), but all these posts were not filled up; The respondents were bound in law to fill up all the posts advertised; And had the respondents filled up these posts, petitioner who though had applied as a SC (UR) Category candidate, would have made it to General (Unreserved) Category select list. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any legal basis for making aforesaid submission. Just because the posts had been advertised, the respondents 2 (2018)11 SCC 352 2025:HHC:24757 - 5 - would not be duty bound to fill up all the advertised posts irrespective of suitability of the persons for the posts in question. It is by now well settled that person does not acquire any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualified in the selection process (refer:- Sudesh Kumar Goyal Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors)3. The respondents have categorically pleaded that ‘merely clearing the exam does not give right of appointment to the petitioner unless the person is fit for appointment in the police. Persons in police forces have to perform duties in varying conditions and situations. Interviews are held to judge those special traits in the individuals. Unless a person satisfies all necessary requirements, he cannot be required for the force in a routine manner. The petitioner was failing to fulfill all necessary qualifications and so his candidate was rejected.’ Respondents’ discretion, in view of above, cannot be said to be absolutely exercised. The fundamental point raised in this petition pertains to petitioner’s claim of transfer of two candidates selected in Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) Category to General (Unreserved) category, on the basis of their more merit. This 3 (2023) 10 SCC 54 2025:HHC:24757 - 6 - point has been held against the petitioner. Consequently, in the given facts of the case, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge July 29, 2025 R.Atal