2025:HHC:26803 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.341 of 2025 Decided on: 07.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Jitender Verma and others ....Appellants Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others ….Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the appellants: Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5-State. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4-H.P.Rajya Chayan Aayog. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the interim order dated 21.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.6762 of 2025, titled as Jitender Verma and others Versus The State of HP and others, whereby, interim application No.8622 of 2025 for stay and not to make any appointments to the post of Drawing Master [Post Code No.980], until the final outcome of the writ petition, was decided. The writ petitioners had sought relief on the ground that 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:26803 - 2 - recruitment process was admittedly tainted by the officials of Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, mainly while leaking the question papers of Drawing Master examination and FIR also stood registered and they prayed that no further appointments should be made till the final disposal of the writ petition. 2. Learned Single Judge vide detailed order, as such, has granted protection to the appellants to the extent that the appointments to the said Post Code No.980 shall abide by the final outcome of the writ petition and directed that pleadings be completed. 3. The reason to deny the benefit, as such, was that the respondents had constituted a Cabinet Sub- Committee on 20.02.2024 to examine various issues and that the matter had been placed before the Cabinet and thereafter the Director General, State Vigilance & Anti- Corruption Bureau came to the considered opinion that for the said category of post, it was feasible to segregate the tainted candidates. The reason given was that there was no evidence of widespread irregularities among other candidates, apart from one candidate, namely, Sunita Devi, who has been facilitated by the employee, Uma Rani, and her son Nikhil Azad. It was in such 2025:HHC:26803 - 3 - circumstances, a fallback was made upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Writ Petition [Civil] No.335 of 2024 [Vanshika Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.], decided on 02.08.2024. 4. Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that while placing reliance upon the report of Sub-Committee that once the recruitment process had become tainted, the result should not be declared. 5. We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had applied her mind by taking into consideration the fact that the issue has been thrashed out at the relevant quarters that there was only evidence of one candidate, as such, who had misused and taken benefit of the fact that the employee, namely, Uma Azad, who was working as Senior Assistant in Examination Branch of the Commission, had provided the papers to Sunita Devi. 6. A perusal of FIR dated 03.03.2023 [Annexure P-4] would go on to show that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in two installments of Rs.50,000/- each had been transferred, as such, to the employee by candidate, namely, Sunita Devi, who had withdrawn the amount from her bank account and also transferred 2025:HHC:26803 - 4 - the said amount through RTGS to the son of the employee, namely, Nikhil Azad. It was thus that the FIR was lodged on that basis that the candidate was the beneficiary, who had also managed to pass the exam having secured 28th position and found place in final merit list of 400 candidates in General Unreserved Category. 7. It was in such circumstances, apparently, the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the overall picture, as such, has made the decision of the selection process, subject to final decision of the writ petition. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the principles, as such, granting interim relief have been kept into mind by the learned Single Judge wisely to the extent that grave inconvenience would be caused to others only on account of cancellation of the result, which is sought by the writ petitioners, by way of the present appeal. It is also to be taken into consideration that the present appellants had sat in the screening test, as such, on 8th of October, 2022, but apparently, did not succeed and pass the screening test and, therefore, they were not in the zone of successful candidates, who might have such grouse that a large number of persons 2025:HHC:26803 - 5 - on account of the fact that paper had leaked might be the beneficiaries, with whom they have to compete with. 9. In such circumstances, keeping in view the overall picture, we are also of the considered opinion that the interest of the present appellants was duly protected by the learned Single Judge. 10. Even otherwise, we are of the considered opinion that the present Letters Patent Appeal would not be maintainable, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Midnapore Peoples’ Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Ors. V. Chunilal Nanda & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2190, since the appeal is against the interim order, whereby, the rights, as such, of the present appellants are not affected. Since the learned Single Judge has not decided the question or issue in controversy to the main case or its root’s, as the order which is passed is only to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. The principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court read as under:- “16. Interim orders/interlocutory orders passed during the pendency of a case, fall under one or the other of the following categories: (i) Orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case. (ii) Orders which finally decide an issue 2025:HHC:26803 - 6 - which materially and directly affects the final decision in the main case. (iii) Orders which finally decide a collateral issue or question which is not the subject matter of the main case. (iv) Routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment. (v) Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party, but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties. The term 'judgment' occurring in clause 15 of the Letters Patent will take into its fold not only the judgments as defined in section 2(9), CPC and orders enumerated in Order 43, Rule 1 of CPC, but also other orders which, though may not finally and conclusively determine the rights of parties with regard to all or any matters in controversy, may have finality in regard to some collateral matter, which will affect the vital and valuable rights and obligations of the parties. Interlocutory orders which fall under categories (i) to (iii) above, are, therefore, 'judgments' for the purpose of filing appeals under the Letters Patent. On the other hand, orders falling under categories (iv) and (v) are not 'judgments' for purpose of filing appeals provided under the Letters Patent.” 11. Resultantly, keeping in view the above, we do not find any merit in the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. 12. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge August 07, 2025 [Bhardwaj]