1 2025:HHC:27805 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMP(M) No. 1034 of 2025 and LPA No. 539 of 2025 Decided on: 13.08.2025 Manoj Sharma ......applicant/appellant Versus State of H.P. and others ...non-applicants/respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the applicant/appellant: Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Vaibhav Chauhan, Advocates. For the non-applicants/ : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate respondents. General with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No.1034 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of 14 days’ in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 LPA No. 539 of 2025 2. Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.8030 of 2022 titled Manoj Sharma vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 02.04.2025. 3. In sum and substance, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, whereby the relief as such was claimed by the appellant-writ petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus to offer appointment to the post of Shastri as per the Post Code-813 by granting one mark in the category of Bharat Scout and Guides certificate from the due date on which date other successful candidates have been offered appointments with all consequential benefits such as seniority, pay scale with interest etc. 4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court on account of the arguments raised that the rules of the game had been changed during the process of recruitment in Tej Prakash 3 Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and others (2025) 2 SCC 1, that there had been an addition in November 2021 as such of newly added certificates on 24.07.2021 on the website for which benefit had to be given and the petitioner was held not eligible for the one mark inspite of the guidelines which were already displayed. 5. Resultantly, it was held that a uniform criterion had been applied for evaluation of certificates issued by Bharat Scouts & Guides and there was no discrimination and therefore it could not be held that rules of game had been changed during the middle of the selection process. The eligibility criteria having remained the same till the termination of the selection process and only the procedural part which did not provide to give him marks for one day event participation had already been displayed on the website at the time of issuance of the advertisement and had been adhered to. Resultantly, finding that no injustice had been caused to the petitioner, the writ petition had been dismissed. 4 3. Counsel for the appellant had vehemently contended that in the advertisement itself dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), the criteria as such had been fixed that the benefit had to be granted on account of having the Bharat Scouts & Guide Certificate and one mark had to be awarded as per Clause 6 of Part II of the advertisement, whereby evaluation of 15 marks was bifurcated. It is thus the case of the appellant that having qualified the written test and being called for the evaluation process on 16.06.2021 vide Annexure P-3 for 30.07.2021, which communication also contained the fact that the benefit of one mark had to be granted, the appeal was liable to be allowed. 4. It is contended that the rules of the game had been changed in midstream during the recruitment process. Reference is thus made to the information obtained from the RTI to the revised guidelines dated 24.11.2021 uploaded on the website and to the communication dated 03.11.2022 (Annexure P-7), whereby the petitioner had been informed that he had not been awarded the marks for the Bharat Scouts & 5 Guides certificate bearing Roll No.813004243 for the post of Shastri as per revised guidelines dated 24.11.2021 which were available on the website of the Commission on “Download” icon. 5. It is thus the case of the appellant that the appellant is on the wait list at Sr. No.40 while referring to Annexure P-6, having obtained total marks of 61.26 out of which 6.76 were given out of the 15 marks and 54.50 for the marks obtained in the written test. It is the contention of the counsel that if one mark is added, he would make the cut, taking his total to 62.26 while referring to the fact that the wait list was utilised to grant appointments to one Kavita and Poonam Sharma who have got 62.01 marks, respectively and the approval had been given to the Commission to work the wait list on 05.11.2022. It is thus the counsel’s contention that if benefit of one mark is awarded, he would come in the zone of consideration for the said post. 6. The perusal of the certificate, on the basis of which the petitioner is relying, would go on to show that the level of 6 participation was of attending one peace rally at the Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Solan, on 04.12.2015 and a Bharat Scouts & Guides, Messengers of Peace Rally Certificate has been issued. 7. The learned Single Judge while calling for the record has noticed that at the time of the issuance of the advertisement, the following certificates would be considered for eligibility of one mark. The same reads as under:- “1. Dwitya Sopan 2. Tritya Sopan 3. Rajya Puraskar 4. Rashtrapati Puraskar” 8. Resultantly, it was noticed that the addition as such was made to five more categories of certificates issued by Bharat Scouts & Guides guidelines for grant of one mark which also included the first four certificates as mentioned above. The details as such are given of all the 9 certificates, which were eventually taken into consideration for grant of the marks, read as under:- “1. The candidates qualifying the following camps under Bharat Scouts & Guides will be eligible for evaluation marks as per prescribed parameters:- 7 (i). ‘Dwitya Sopan’ (ii). ‘Tritya Sopan’ (iii). ‘Rajya Puraskar’ (iv). ‘Rashtrapati Puraskar’ (v). ‘Tritya Charan cub/Swarn Pankh Bulbul’ (vi) ‘Chaturth Charan Cub/Heerak Pankh Bulbul’ (vii) ‘Praveen Badge’ (viii) ‘Nipun Badge’ (ix) ‘Rashtrapati Rover/Ranger’ Other certificates including other camp participation certificates will not be accepted ” 9. It is in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that mere participation as such on a camp or event was not to fetch any mark. Reliance has also been placed on the principles which have been laid down by the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak’s case (supra), wherein reference was answered in the following terms :- “65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement which is not contrary to the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 8 65.3. The decision K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha. Subash Chander Marwaha deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; 65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved; 65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list. 66. Let the appeals be placed before the appropriate Bench for decision in terms of the answers rendered above, after obtaining administrative directions from the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.” 10. A perusal of the above principles which have been laid down would go on to show that in the present case, the eligibility of the petitioner as such would not change to his detriment and only the benefit as such of the certificate was not granted which was uniformly applied and a certain category of certificates have been specified. The criteria was only laid down for the purpose of the convenience of recruitment process and to avoid any heart burning apparently 9 on the account of the nominal participation qua the certificates whereby the camps had been arranged for a considerable period. Therefore the classification which has been made by the recruiting agency as such was valid as basically the same was transparent, neither discriminatory nor arbitrary in any manner and had a rational nexus for the object sought to be achieved for the grant of the benefit of one mark. 11. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the criteria which had been prescribed even though it was during the recruitment process as argued as such was by way of clarification having been universally applied to all the candidates and does not work to the detriment of the appellant. 12. It is also pertinent to mention and also noticed that inspite of the information having been received by the petitioner regarding the revised guidelines as such, no challenge was raised to the said communication and only the simple prayer as such was made that his case be considered for allotment of one mark. The authorities as such having 10 resorted to uniform application of not granting a mark on account of mere participation as such and only on account of having specific certificates, only clarified a clause in the advertisement which is not violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and therefore non-discriminatory. 13. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which would warrant interference. 14. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice August 13 , 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (ankit) Judge