2025:HHC:20624 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.309 of 2025 Decided on: 27.06.2025 __________________________________________________________ Roshan Lal & Others ...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. For the petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] Challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order dated 22.04.2025, passed by learned Single Judge, in CWP No.8907 of 2022, titled Roshan Lal & Others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Another, by the writ petitioners. 2. It is also pertinent to note that in the writ petition challenge had been raised to the Standing Order dated 02.01.2017, issued by the Director General of Police [Annexure P-2], whereby the minimum qualifying 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:20624 - 2 - percentage of marks for the written test was raised from 50% to 60% vide Clause 6(g). The minimum qualifying percentage to clear the B-I Test was also increased to 60% instead of 50% which was also subject matter of challenge. The challenge was raised on the ground that the Standing Order violated the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh) have statutory force. 3. The learned Single Judge, in a detailed order, noted the history of the case. It was observed that the matter had earlier been repeatedly brought before the Court, and various directions had already been issued. The most and important aspect, which stopped the petitioners from now challenging the said criteria, is that they had participated in the selection process, and having failed to qualify as per the criteria, they had approached the Court nearly five years after the declaration of the result. The law is well settled on this issue. 4. Reference can be made to the judgment in AIR (1995) 3 SCC 486, titled Madan Lal and Others versus 2025:HHC:20624 - 3 - State of Jammu and Kashmir, and followed in K.A. Nagamani versus Indian Airlines & Others, (2009) 5 SCC 215, wherein it was held that candidates who opted to participate in the selection process, sat for the examination, and failed, cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the terms and conditions of the selection they had accepted. This is based on the principle of estoppel. Accordingly, the writ petition filed in 2022, was itself not maintainable. 5. It is also a settled principle that promotion- related grievances must be raised at the earliest, and as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, such issues are to be raised within six months. Reliance can also be placed on the judgment in P.S. Sadasivaswamy vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 AIR 2271, 1975 SCR (2) 356, decided on 07.11.1974, wherein the principles were laid down and consistently followed over the years. The learned Single Judge further recorded that 931 persons had qualified in the B-I Test held in 2017, and that some of the petitioners had cleared the written test but failed in the outdoor test. 6. The argument now raised that certain persons 2025:HHC:20624 - 4 - who did not qualify were promoted, is without any factual basis, particularly as none of those persons were arrayed as private respondents. No relief could thus be granted in their absence. Further, no specific challenge was raised showing violation of the criteria fixed in the Standing Order, whereby the said persons were promoted. 7. The contention that the test ought to have been conducted in a statutory manner as per Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, is also devoid of merit. In fact, there were grievances that qualified candidates were not being sent for further training, even after being included in the B-I list. The Division Bench in CWPOA No.3141 of 2019, titled Ct. Bhupinder Kumar and others versus State of H.P. and another, decided on 04.08.2020 [Annexure R-4], allowed the writ petition and held that the qualified Constables would be adjusted as per their merit in the State Level Merit List of B-I Test (2017) for undergoing Lower School Course as and when vacancies arise in the rank of head Constables. The Court also emphasized the feasibility of conducting the B-I Test annually and 2025:HHC:20624 - 5 - sending candidates based on State Level merit, while giving preference to qualified candidates from previous years, before exhausting each year's B-I List successively without violating the observations in the judgment dated 08.01.2016, passed in LPA No.158 of 2014 and connected matters. Thus, the right of consideration for being brought on the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable had already been clarified. 8. In these circumstances, the exigency had arisen due to the fact that 931 candidates had qualified for 234 posts, despite the raised qualifying standards. Since the qualifying criteria had been enhanced, which has now been objected to and in such peculiar circumstances, the Division Bench had protected the interests of those who had qualified, so that the State would not hold a fresh test or interfere with the existing list, thereby depriving the qualified candidates of their rights. 9. In such circumstances, the agitation at the belated stage by the appellant’s in the year 2022 who had participated in the 2017 test (held from 08.08.2017 to 25.08.2017) and failed to qualify as per the Standing 2025:HHC:20624 - 6 - Order’s, cannot be entertained. 10. Resultantly, we find no plausible reason to entertain the present appeal, and the same is dismissed in limine. 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 27, 2025 [Shivender/Chiranjeev]