IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13063 of 2025 Date of Decision: 14.08.2025 _______________________________________________________ Manmohan Sharma …….Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar and Mr. B.C.Verma, Additional Advocate Generals, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hirdaya Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondents, without conducting the skill test, procedure whereof has been provided under the policy, proceeded to grant higher marks to private respondents No.6 and 7, as a result thereof, petitioner, who was more meritorious, has not been selected against the post of Para Pump Operator. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Pursuant to communication dated 29.11.2023 (Annexure P-1), issued from the Office of the Principal Secretary (Jal Shakti) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, Engineer- in-Chief, Jal Shakti Bhawan, initiated process for selection to the posts of multipurpose worker, Para Pump Operator, Para Fitter, Para Cook and Para Helper. Petitioner herein applied for the post of Para Pump Operator. Respondent-Department issued call letter to the petitioner to attend the office of respondent No.5 for skill test to be conducted by panel of Screening/ Recruitment Committee. Allegedly, interview was conducted under the garb of skill test by Screening/Recruitment Committee under the Chairmanship of respondent No.5 by indulging in question answer session in the skill test, in violation of Para Pump Operator Policy, and only 0.50 were awarded to the petitioner, who had actually had secured 78.75% marks in matriculation examination, whereas respondent Nos. 6 and 7, who had secured only 65.71% and 50.57% marks in the matriculation examination, were granted 1.90 and 1.95 marks respectively under skill test, as a result thereof, they obtained more marks in total than the petitioner. 3. During the proceedings of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse Recruitment 3 Notice (Annexure P-8), wherein provision of skill test was also contemplated, attempted to argue that under skill test, practical knowledge of candidates was to be examined. However, respondents did not conduct any practical examination qua the knowledge of candidates regarding the Pumps used by the department for lifting the water, rather Screening Committee headed by respondent No.5, after putting a few questions to the candidates, straightway proceeded to grant marks to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 4. Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, while refuting aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that no cogent and convincing material has been adduced on record by the petitioner to prove that no skill test was conducted, rather he, after having failed in the test, has attempted to level serious allegations against the members of the Committee, who, without there being any bias, have selected the best candidate. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that no doubt petitioner herein had more marks in 10th examination, but since in total he failed to secure marks more than respondent Nos. 6 and 7, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents, while selecting private respondents against the 4 post of Para Pump Operator. He further submitted that though there is nothing to suggest in the Recruitment Notice that some practical was to be taken by the Screening Committee to ascertain the skill of the candidates, but even if parameters given under the skill test in the Recruitment notice are perused in their entirety, it clearly reveals that only knowledge of the candidates with regard to pump was to be ascertained by the Screening Committee, which otherwise could have been ascertained by asking question with regard to water pump machine. Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that once petitioner had already participated in the examination, he, after his having failed in examination, is otherwise estopped from laying challenge to selection of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. 5. It is settled law that the process of selection cannot be challenged by an unsuccessful candidate by merely pointing out certain irregularities here and there in the process, of which he was aware, once the result is not to his liking. Relief, in such a case, is to be declined by applying the principles of estopple, acquiescence and/or waiver. Reference in this regard may conveniently be made to the two recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5 ““10. In Madras Institute of Development Studies and another vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan and others(2016) 1 SCC 454, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 12. The contention of the respondent no.1 that the short- listing of the candidates was done by few professors bypassing the Director and the Chairman does not appear to be correct. From perusal of the documents available on record it appears that short- listing of the candidates was done by the Director in consultation with the Chairman and also senior Professors. Further it appears that the Committee constituted for the purpose of selection consists of eminent Scientists, Professor of Economic Studies and Planning and other members. The integrity of these members of the Committee has not been doubted by the respondent- writ petitioner. It is well settled that the decision of the Academic Authorities about the suitability of a candidate to be appointed as Associate Professor in a research institute cannot normally be examined by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the fact that the candidates so selected possessed all requisite qualifications and experience and, therefore, their appointment cannot be questioned on the ground of lack of qualification and experience. The High Court ought not to have interfered with the decision of the Institute in appointing respondent nos. 2 to 4 on the post of Associate Professor. 13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment, turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post. 14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra. 15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held: (SCC P. 591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and 6 taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal vs. Prem Chand Singhvi, AIR 1957 SC 425 where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ....It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of r raising the present technical point.' " 16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of J & K & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p. 493, para 9) "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, r the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner." 17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition." 7 18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC p. 320, para 24) "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents." 19. So far as the finding recorded by the Division Bench on the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant Institute is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, we are not bound to go into that question, which is kept open." 6. In Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of Bihar and others (2017) 4 SCC 357, a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under: "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla[4], this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that : "18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)". 14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borooah (2009) 3 SCC 227, where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful. 15. In Manish Kumar Shah v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well 8 that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v.State of J. and K. (1995) 3 SCC 486, Marripati Nagaraja v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 522, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v.State of Uttaranchal and Ors.(2008) 4 SCC 171, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227 and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (2009) 5 SCC 515." 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, (2011) 1 SCC 150, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible. 17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the respondents were disentitled to seek relief under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that: (SCC p. 318, para 18) "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome." 18. In Chandigarh Administration v. Jasmine Kaur[11], it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non- selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493,this Court held that: (SCC p.500, para17) : "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had r participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have 9 participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted." This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development v. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam's case (supra).". 7. Since it stands duly established on record that the writ petitioners before laying challenge to selection process had participated in selection process without any demur, now it is not open for them to lay challenge to selection process after having been declared unsuccessful that too on the bald and baseless allegations. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record vis-à-vis the controversy sought to be decided in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to call for the reply on behalf of the respondents, rather the Court can straightway proceed to decide the case on the basis of the material already available on record. 9. Admittedly, in the case at hand, skill test was conducted in the month of November, 2024, but petitioner has approached this Court after inordinate delay of eight months. There is no plausible explanation rendered on record qua afore delay. If the petitioner was aggrieved of procedure adopted by the Selection Committee in the skill test, which was admittedly conducted in November, 2024, he ought to have approached this Court at first opportunity i.e. in 1st week of December, 2024.However, petitioner, who claims that result was 10 declared in April, 2025, waited till Against 2025, to tile the present petition. 10. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that result was declared in April, 2025 and as such, it cannot be said that present petition has not been filed within reasonable time, but this Court, having taken note of the fact that grounds taken by the petitioner that no proper procedure was followed to conduct skill test , coupled with the fact that no steps, if any, were ever taken by the petitioner to approach this Court in the month of December, 2024 itself when the skill test was conducted, is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner. Once petitioner was aggrieved of the procedure adopted by the Screening Committee in conducting skill test and he had apprehension that under the grab of interview more marks can be granted to respondent No.6, he was otherwise expected to approach appellate authority or the competent court of law well within time. 11. Moreover, this Court is not persuaded to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that in the skill test, Screening Committee was necessarily required to make the candidate do some practical work, because if the para-meters as given in the Recruitment Notice with regard to skill test are seen in their entirety, it clearly suggests that very purpose and object of conducting the skill test was to check the practical knowledge of the candidate with regard 11 machine where they had to work after their selection. Though, no cogent and convincing material has been placed on record by the petitioner to substantiate the allegation with regard to procedural irregularities, if any, committed by the Committee, but even otherwise, having taken note of parameters given in the skill test in the Recruitment notice, coupled with the fact that petitioner herein approached this Court at belated stage, that too after his having failed to clear the examination, this Court is not persuaded to interfere in the matter. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly same is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge August 14, 2025 (shankar)