IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 10629 of 2024 Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ranjana Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Union of India & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though candidature of the petitioner for the post of Scientist, advertised vide Advertisement No.2 of 2020 (Annexure P-2) ought not have been rejected by the Screening Committee on the ground that sufficient number of eligible candidates are not available, but yet respondents ignoring amended Rule10.2 of CSIR Service Rules, 1994, proceeded to cancel the selection process qua the post of Scientist under post code No. SCT-2001. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from the record are that the respondents issued advertisement No. 2 of 2020, thereby inviting applications for the posts of Scientist, Senior Medical Officer and Technical Assistant including one post of Tea-Scientist with post code SCT-20001(Annexure P-2). Petitioner herein, being fully eligible, applied for the post of Tea Scientist in the area of tea Chemistry SCT-2001 under general category. In total, 55 candidates, including the petitioner, applied for the aforesaid post of Scientist in the area tea Chemistry. Since, despite after the passing of last date for submission of application, needful was not being done by the respondents, petitioner made a representation for declaration of result, but fact remains that for more than two years neither the candidature of the petitioner was rejected nor result was declared. On 03.05.2024, Screening Committee scrutinized the application forms as well as the documents of all the candidates, including the petitioner and called shortlisted candidates for interview of all the other posts, except the post of the petitioner i.e Scientist in the area of Tea Chemistry with post Code SCT 2001. Finally, vide impugned order dated 10.09.2024(Annexure P-6), respondents cancelled the advertisement No. 2 of 2020 for the post of Scientist on the ground that number of candidates was not sufficient to be called for interview. In the aforesaid background, petitioner has approached this 3 Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:- “i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the impugned notice dated 10.09.2024 may kindly be quashed and set- aside with the direction to the respondents to complete the selection process for the post of scientist with the post code SCT-2001:Scientis in the area of tea Chemistry (01-post-UR). ii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of scientist.” 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though prior to amendment, which came into effect w.e.f. 26.11.1997, minimum three candidates per post were required to be shortlisted for the interview/trade tests, but after amendment of Rule 2.2 of the CSIR Services Rule, 1994 for recruitment of Scientific/Technical and Support Staff, the requirement of minimum three candidates per post has been done away with. If it is so, petitioner herein, who was only found to be eligible by the Screening Committee, ought to have been offered appointment against the post in question. 4. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings, respondents have filed reply, wherein facts, as have been reproduced hereinabove, have not been disputed, but an attempt has been made to refute the rightful claim of the petitioner on the pretext that though petitioner was found eligible for the post in question, but since 4 minimum of three candidates per post were not available, respondents had no option, but to cancel the advertisement qua Post Code No. SCT-2001. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that prior to the amendment of Rule 10.2 of the CSIR Services Rule 1994, which came into operation w.e.f.26.11.1997, Rule 10.2 was as under:- 6. As per aforesaid un-amended Rule, Screening Committee, while adopting its own criteria for shortlisting the candidates to be called for interview/trade tests, was required to shortlist a minimum of three candidates per post for interview/trade test. However, aforesaid Rule came to be amended w.e.f. 26.11.1997, which fact is otherwise evident from the amended Rules placed on record by the respondents alongwith the reply (available at page No. 157 of the paper book), which reads as under:- AMENDED RULE 10.2 “ The Screening Committee will” adopt its own criteria for short listing the candidates to be called for interview/trade test. However, if the number of applications for a post is very large, then a screening test may be conducted for short listing candidates for interview if it is considered necessary by the Screening Committee.” EXISTING RULE -10.2 “ Application received will be scrutinized by a Screening Committee to be constituted from amongst the members of the Selection Committee. The Screening Committee will adopt its own criteria for short listing the candidates to be called for interview/trade tests. As far as possible, a minimum of 3 candidates per post should be shortlisted for the interview/trade. 5 7. As per aforesaid amended Rule, though the Screening Committee, can adopt its own criteria for shortlisting the candidates to be called for interview/trade tests, but if number of applications for the post is/was very large, then a screening test may be conducted for shortlisting the candidates for interview, if it is considered necessary by the Screening Committee. 8. It is quite apparent from aforesaid amended Rule that there is no requirement of minimum three candidates per post and, in case only one candidate is found to be eligible by the Screening Committee, he is required to be interviewed. 9. Having carefully perused un-amended Rules, this Court is perused to agree with Mr. Vikrant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner that even un-amended Rule nowhere makes it mandatory for the Screening Committee to shortlist minimum of three candidates per post, rather word used are “as far as possible”. But now since aforesaid Rules stand amended, whereby requirement of shortlisting of minimum three candidates has been done away with, coupled with the fact that a large number of applicants were not available, rather all applicants save and except petitioner were found ineligible, there was otherwise no requirement, if any, for Screening Committee to conduct screening test. In that eventuality, petitioner ought to have been 6 interviewed by the Interview Committee / Board for selection against the post in question. 10. Vide order dated 24.09.2024, this Court, having taken note of aforesaid aspect of the matter, directed the respondents not to take any further decision pursuant to issuance of Annexure P-6, dated 10.09.2024, whereby a decision was taken to advertise the post in question afresh, as a result thereof, post which the petitioner had applied and qua which he was found to be eligible, is still available and can be ordered to be filled up pursuant to the recommendation, if any, made by the Interview Committee/Board. 11. It is also required to be clarified that at the time of making application, petitioner was 31 years of age and during the pendency of the case, he has become overage, but since there was no fault, if any, of the petitioner, rather he made an application well within time, question of petitioner being over age, shall not come in his way in getting appointment, if any, pursuant to the recommendation by the Interview Committee/Board. 12. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly same is allowed. The respondents are directed to constitute an Interview Committee/Board for interviewing the petitioner for his selection to the post in question i.e. Scientist in the 7 area of Tea Chemistry and, in case petitioner is found fit by the Interview Committee/Board, he shall be offered appointment forthwith. Since petitioner has been fighting for his rightful claim for more than five years, this Court hopes and trusts that needful in terms of observations as well as mandate contained in the judgment at hand shall be done by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 25, 2025 (shankar)