IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5759 of 2023 Reserved on: 23.06.2025 Date of Decision: 01.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Yamini Rana …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Hamirpur (in short ‘HPSSSC’), vide advertisement No. 36-3/2020 dated 21.09.2020, invited applications for filling up seven posts of Junior Draftsman (Civil) and 83 posts of Junior Draftsman (Electrical), having Post Code-838 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner herein, being fully eligible, applied for the aforesaid post. Though 3477 candidates had applied, but only 2438 were found 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 eligible to participate in the objective test. Out of 2438 candidates, 1368 appeared in the screening test and 279 candidates, including petitioner qualified the screening test. Thereafter, the final result was declared on 22.06.2022, wherein out of 90 candidates, 89 candidates were shown to be selected (Annexure P-2). 2. After declaration of the result of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) by the HPSSSC, Hamirpur, waiting list of Junior Draftsman (Civil & Electrical) Post Code-838 was also published and therein petitioner was shown to be at serial No. 3 (Annexure P-3). 3. After receipt of recommendation from the respondent- HPSSSC, the matter relating to appointment was processed and considered by respondent-HPSEBL, who sent offer of appointment to selected candidates, sponsored by HPSSSC. 4. Vide notification dated 21.02.2023, Government of Himachal Pradesh abolished HPSSSC, Hamirpur and in furtherance of afore notification, further action, if any, qua sponsoring the name of successful candidates, who were in waiting list in the respective categories was to be taken by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC). Though HPSSSC, Hamirpur, sponsored the names of 82 candidates for the post of Junior Draftsman (Electrical), vide letter dated 28.06.2023, but fact remains that five seats of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) could not be 3 filled up due to various reasons and accordingly, HPSEBL, requested respondent No. 2-HPPSC, Shimla, vide letter dated 12.06.2023 (Annexure RA-4), to sponsor the names of five selected candidates from the select panel/merit list of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) against Post Code-838 as per the break-up of the category wise posts. 5. 5. Since aforesaid request made by the respondent- HPSEBL was not paid any heed, respondent-HPSEBL took up the matter with respondent No. 1 vide letter dated dated 26.09.2023 (Annexure RA-5) annexed with the reply filed by respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 i.e. HPPSC responded to aforesaid letters, vide letter dated 03.10.2023 and submitted that no relevant record pertaining to the Post Code-838 has been ordered to be transferred to the Commission by the Government and it is still in the custody of OSD to erstwhile HP Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur. In the afore background, respondent-HPSEBL, vide letter dated 07.10.2023 (Annexure RA-7), requested the OSD, HPSSC Hamirpur to sponsor the name of five candidates from the select panel/merit list of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) against Post Code-838, which instead of sponsoring the names of five candidates from the select panel/waiting list, apprised respondent-HPSEBL that further action to sponsor the names from the select panel/waiting list is to be taken by the respondent No. 2 against the respective categories. 4 6. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that though five vacancies had arisen, qua which candidates figuring in the select panel/waiting list could be offered appointment, but on account of the sheer negligence/miscommunication inter se respondent No. 2 & 3, they were not offered appointment. 7. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that first candidate in the waiting list, Mr. Ankush Rana, was recommended by the respondent-HPSSSC and has joined the respondent-department vide Annexure P-4, while the second candidate, namely Sikander Deen, having foregone the employment, is not serving, therefore, the petitioner being next in line, is entitled to be offered appointment. 8. While referring to Annexures P-4 & P-5, Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though petitioner obtained information under RTI Act, which revealed that four posts of Junior Draftsman remained vacant due to non-joining of selected candidates, but on account of sheer negligence of respondents No. 2 & 3, petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons, whose names were included in the waiting panel, were not offered appointment. 9. Pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner further reveals that after receipt of information under Right to Information Act, 5 the petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 1, who apprised her that department has already written to the competent authority for filling up the remaining three posts of Junior Draughtsman (Electrical), but yet no action has been taken. Though before filing petition at hand, petitioner made representation dated 19.07.2023 to the Hon’ble Chief Minister and MD/Chairman, HPSEB (Annexure P-6), but no action was taken to appoint the petitioner, as a result thereof, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein following main reliefs:- “(i) That a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to be appointed for the post of Junior Draughtsman (Electrical) from the waiting panel due to non-joining of selected candidates. (ii) That respondent no.2 may be directed to recommend the name of petitioner to respondent no.1 from the waiting list panel for appointment as junior draftsman (electrical) forthwith.” 10. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents No. 1 & 3 have filed reply, perusal thereof, in its entirety, nowhere disputes facts as have been taken note hereinabove. Respondent No. 1 has attempted to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the pretext that action, if any, to fill up the unfilled posts was to be taken by respondents No. 2 & 3. In this regard, respondent No. 3, in its reply, has stated that on account of policy decision of the Government, whereby respondent-HPSSSC was abolished, further 6 action, if any, pursuant to request made by the respondent-HPSEBL was to be taken by the HP Public Service Commission. An attempt has also been made by respondent No. 3 to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the pretext that validity of the waiting panel for the post of Junior Draftsman was one year from date of the recommendation, which expired on 27.06.2023, much prior to the filing of present petition and receipt of requisition dated 07.10.2023 for recommending the candidate for appointment from the waiting penal and as such, there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner. 11. It is not in dispute that petitioner herein though had been declared as a successful candidate in the selection process, but was unable the find place in the merit list and as such, her name was kept in the waiting list prepared at the time of declaration of result for filling up the post of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) having Post Code-838. It is also not in dispute, rather stands admitted by the respondents in their reply that on account of non-joining of selected candidates, five posts remained vacant and thereafter, respondent No. 1 repeatedly sent communications to respondents No. 2 & 3, thereby requesting them to forward the names of candidates from the waiting panel. Name of Mr. Ankush Rana, who was in the waiting list, was recommended by the respondent–HPSSSC and he subsequently joined the respondent-Board (Annexure P-4) and second candidate 7 namely Mr. Sikander Deen, having forgone the employment, is not serving, as a result thereof, petitioner, being next in line, became entitled to appointment, but certainly on account of miscommunication and confusion inter se respondent No. 2 & 3, she has not been offered appointment till date. 12. Though in the case at hand, respondent No. 1 repeatedly requested respondents No. 2 & 3 to forward the names of selected candidates from the waiting penal, enabling it to fill up the vacant posts, but respondent No.3, after issuance of notification dated 21.02.2023, whereby Government decided to abolish HPSSSC, was unable to pursue the matter and thereafter, request was made by the petitioner to respondent-HP Public Service Commission, which came to be rejected on the pretext that record pertaining to Post Code-838 though has been ordered to be transferred to HP Public Service Commission by the Government, but same is still in the custody of OSD to erstwhile HP Staff Selection Commission Hamirpur (Annexure RA-6) annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.1. 13. Though in the case at hand, respondent No.2 has not filed reply, but Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, stated that since validity of the waiting panel for filling up the post in question stood expired before receipt of letter, requesting therein to sponsor the names from the waiting panel, no 8 illegality can be said to have been committed by the Commission by not sponsoring the name of the petitioner. 14. No doubt, vide notification dated 21.02.2023, notification dated 06.10.1998, whereby Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur was constituted, came to be rescinded, but if the latter part of this notification is read, it certainly compels this Court to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that decision taken with regard to things already done or omitted to be done before such rescission, were required to be taken to their logical end by the Commission. In this regard, it would be apt to take note of last para of the aforesaid notification, which reads as under: “Now, therefore, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to hereby rescind the notification dated the 6th October, 1998 and abolish the H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur except in respects of the things done or omitted to be done before such rescission, with immediate effect, in the public interest.” 15. Careful perusal of aforesaid notification clearly suggests that after 21.2.2023, though respondent-HPSSC was not competent to make any fresh selection, but certainly selection made prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification or process, if any, could have been taken to its logical end. Probably, aforesaid clause was specifically inserted by the Government with a view to protect the interest of those candidates, who stood selected and were not being 9 offered appointment on account of certain litigations pending in the Court. 16. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties that before issuance of aforesaid notification, respondent No. 1 had informed the respondent No. 2 with regard to non-joining of the selected candidates and had requested for recommending the names from the waiting panel but said request was not considered, and as such, prayer made by the petitioner cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that with the issuance of notification dated 21.02.2023, respondent No.3 had become inoperative and had no power to recommend the names from the waiting panel. 17. Reply filed by HP Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur clearly reveals that on account of various representations filed by the candidates, whose names figured in the waiting list, Commission took up the matter with the Secretary (Pers.) Government of Himachal Pradesh for filling up the vacancies from the waiting panel. Vide communication dated 10.10.2023, Secretary (Pers.) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, requested the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Shimla, to fill up the posts, which had fallen vacant on account of non-joining of the selected candidates, but interestingly, no decision ever came to be made with 10 regard to requests made by the petitioner and other similarly situate persons, as a result thereof, they were compelled to approach this Court in number of petitions. 18. Though this Court is fully conscious of the fact that validity of waiting panel was for one year from the date of recommendation i.e. dated 28.06.2022 and same stood expired on 27.06.2023 i.e. prior to the filing of the petition at hand but once this Court is satisfied that entire confusion arose on account of miscommunication inter se respondents No. 2 & 3, coupled with the fact that respondent No. 1 had intimated both respondents No. 2 & 3 well in time with regard to non-joining of five candidates with the further request to recommend the names of candidates from select panel/waiting panel, rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that waiting panel stood expired. 19. True it is that after 21.02.2023, no fresh selection and recommendation could be made by respondent No. 3 but as has been observed hereinabove everything done by the petitioner prior to issuance of notification dated 21.02.2023 or omitted to be done, was required to be taken to its logical end. Since in the case at hand, petitioner was able to find place in the waiting panel for the post in question and concerned department after having noticed vacancies had written to respondents No. 2 & 3 to send the names from the 11 waiting panel, case of the petitioner being fully covered under the exception Clause provided in Notification dated 21.02.2023 ought to have been considered by respondents No. 2 & 3. Though learned counsel representing the respondents attempted to argue that petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition after exhaustion of waiting panel, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner herein had been approaching authorities for redressal of her grievance. 20. Reply filed by the respondents No. 1 & 3 if read in conjunction clearly suggests that factum with regard to non-joining of five candidates from the merit list was well within the knowledge of respondents No. 2 & 3 and thereafter, repeated requests were made by respondent No. 1 to sponsor the names from waiting panel, but yet no action was taken by the respondents No. 2 & 3 for recommending the names from the waiting panel, as a result thereof, number of candidates including petitioner, who had chance to get government job on account of their being in the waiting panel were denied their rightful claim, which action of the respondents otherwise by no stretch of imagination can be held to be justifiable rather same being arbitrary and discriminatory deserves to be quashed and set aside being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12 21. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court directed respondent-Commission to recommend the name of eligible candidates from the waiting panel drawn after declaration of the result for various posts i.e. CWP Nos. 5807, 5808 and 5944 of 2023 titled as Gauri Prasad and Ors. VS. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Lobh Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and Renuka and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on 19.03.2024 and judgment dated 22.04.2023 passed in CWP No. 5750 of 2023 titled as Megha Gupta & Anr. VS. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Respondents have not been able to dispute that pursuant to aforesaid judgments passed by this Court, petitioners therein have been offered appointment against the post in question. 22. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed. Respondent No. 3, which has now come into existence, is directed to recommend the name of the petitioner from the waiting panel drawn after declaration of the result for the post of Junior Draftsman post Code-838 in year 2020 and thereafter, appropriate action be taken by respondent No. 1 for offering appointment to the petitioner qua the available vacancy. Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful claim for a considerable time, this Court hopes and trusts that needful 13 in terms of directions contained in the judgment shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of along with pending applications, if any. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge July 01, 2025 (Sunil)