2025:HHC:30682 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.3806 of 2019 Reserved on: 27.08.2025 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Khem Raj Bhandari ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr.Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.Onkar Jairath, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr.Surinder Saklani, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr.Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Lovneesh Kanwar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tek Chand, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Mr.K.C. Sankhyan, Advocate, for respondent No.8. 2 2025:HHC:30682 Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs: “(i) That a writ in the nature of certiorari may be issued and of the appointments of respondents 4 to 8 and all other similarly situated persons whose experience certificates are not countersigned by the concerned Deputy Director of Education and who have secured marks equivalent to the petitioner in interview, may very kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of Headmaster from the date when similarly situated persons were offered appointment with all consequential benefits of pay, arrears, seniority etc. etc.” 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the matter are that the 3rd respondent issued advertisement No.8/11 dated 23.09.2011 inviting applications for 212 posts of Headmasters from eligible candidates. 108 posts were for General category candidates. 3. The petitioner also participated in the selection process as general category candidate, which included screening and viva voce test. The advertisement had specifically stipulated that the screening test would be held only to shortlist number of 3 2025:HHC:30682 candidates and the marks obtained in the screening test would not be counted in deciding the merit of the candidates. Final selection was to be made solely on the basis of performance in viva voce test which was to be of maximum 100 marks. 4. The petitioner qualified the screening test and was called for interview. 5. In the final select list for the General category candidates, the name of petitioner did not figure. It is the case of the petitioner that he was at Sr. No.111 of the merit list of General category candidates. The candidates up to Sr. No.108 were recommended and appointed. 6. The petitioner has alleged that the selection was not made by 3rd respondent in accordance with Rules. It is alleged that the candidates from Sr. No.105 to 125, including the petitioner, had obtained 56 marks in viva voce test. The 3rd respondent had wrongly preferred the candidates having scored higher marks in screening test, whereas in the case of tie, the same was to be broken by considering the person elder in age as against the person lower in age. The next contention as raised by the petitioner is that many of the selected candidates had submitted their experience certificates without being countersigned by the Deputy Director of Education and hence their selection was vitiated. The petitioner further alleged that 4 2025:HHC:30682 private respondents No.4 to 8 were not holding the requisite qualification of 5 years’ experience as TGT in terms of advertisement and R&P Rules. 7. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint reply and all other respondents have filed their separate replies. All have contested the claim of the petitioner almost on identical grounds. It has been submitted that as per Rules of business published by 3rd respondent, in case of tie of marks, the marks in the screening test were to be considered. The 3rd respondent has made a specific reference to the provision as contained at Sr. No.7 under Chapter V-C item (iii) at Page-13 of the Rules of business of the Commission in this behalf. It has further been submitted that the neither the advertisement nor the R& P Rules for the post of Headmaster required the experience certificate to be countersigned by the Deputy Director of Education. 8. As regards the non-fulfillment of 5 years’ experience by private respondents, each of them has defended themselves by denying the assertions made in the petition. According to them, they had requisite experience in terms of advertisement and the R& P Rules. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 5 2025:HHC:30682 10. At the time of hearing of the petition, the original record was requisitioned and retained for perusal. 11. At the very outset, learned counsel for private respondents produced a copy of judgment dated 24.09.2021, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWPOA No.1360 of 2019, titled Khem Raj Bhandari vs. State of H.P. & others to assert that the petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the same selection process by way of aforesaid petition, though on the ground that the private respondents therein were overage and hence could not have been selected. They would contend that the petitioner could not have challenged the same selection process by filing different petitions as the cause of action was the same. According to them, the principle of constructive res judicata would apply and the instant petition was not maintainable. They submitted in alternative that the petitioner had not disclosed such a material fact before this Court till date and for such reason also the petitioner was not entitled for any discretion from this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. Confronted with above argument, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in CWPOA No.1360 of 2019 the ground of challenge was different and hence there was no bar in filing the instant petition. 6 2025:HHC:30682 13. Perusal of judgment passed in CWPOA No.1360 of 2019 reveals that the challenge in the said petition was to the same selection process and the appointments made in pursuance thereto, as is under challenge in the instant petition. In CWPOA No.1360 of 2019 the challenge was that the private respondents therein were overage. The petitioner remained unsuccessful in the said petition which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 24.09.2021. 14. The petitioner cannot evade the obligation by simply saying that the grounds of challenge in both the petitions were different. The cause of action for filing the instant petition cannot be said to be unavailable to the petitioner at the time of filing of CWPOA No.1360 of 2019. That being so, the omission of petitioner to raise the grounds, as raised now in the instant petition, in CWPOA No.1360 of 2019 would not only entail bar of constructive res judicata, the instant petition would also be barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. In addition, the petitioner also has been found guilty of suppression of material facts. Not only that the petitioner did not disclose the filing of CWPOA No.1360 of 2019, the factum of its dismissal has also been brought to the notice of this Court till date. Such an act of petitioner cannot be said to be unintentional and bonafide. In this view of the matter also, the petitioner cannot 7 2025:HHC:30682 be held entitled to any relief in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. At the time of hearing, the petitioner had confined his challenge to the alleged illegality committed by the official respondents in granting appointment to respondents No.4, 5 & 7. As against respondents No.4 & 5, it was sought to be projected that they lacked the experience of 5 years. The argument advanced against respondent No.7 was that he had been granted the benefit of teaching experience in District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), which was not in consonance with the requirements of advertisement and R&P Rules. 17. Noticeably, the petitioner has filed the instant petition without first raising his grievance or claim before the official respondents. In absence of such challenge, the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise disputed questions of facts in writ jurisdiction before this Court for the first time. 18. Even otherwise, on perusal of original record, the allegations against respondents No.4 and 5 have not been found to be correct. The certificates were duly scrutinized by the competent authority and as per them, respondents No.4 and 5 were having requisite experience. 19. It will be apt to reproduce the essential qualification for the post of Headmaster: 8 2025:HHC:30682 “Essential qualification: (i) At least 2nd Class Master’s Degree in Arts/Science or its equivalent from a recognized University. (ii) 5 years teaching experience as Trained Graduate Teacher in Senior Secondary Schools/High Schools/Middle Schools of H.P. Government or any Educational Institutions affiliated to H.P. Board of School Education/C.B.S.E//I.C.S.E.” 20. As regards the experience of respondent No.7 with DIET, the same also cannot be said to be not fulfilling the requirements of above noticed essential qualifications. 21. The DIET is an institution which besides other curriculum provides education to the JBT students. The Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education holds examination for JBT courses. Thus, in terms of Regulation 16.13 of Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education Examination Regulations, all Government Institutions, which prepare their candidates for examination conducted by the Board, shall be deemed to have been affiliated by the Board. Such institutions are exempted from making any formal application to the Board or from the payment of affiliation fee or extension fee as the case may be. 22. Thus, the DIET is an affiliated educational institution to the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education and the 7th respondent had requisite teaching experience as TGT. 9 2025:HHC:30682 23. In result, keeping in view the entirety of circumstances there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge September 09, 2025 (vt)