IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.176 of 2025 Decided on: 03.06.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Rajinder Singh & Others ...Appellants Versus State of H.P. 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. Naresh K. Tomar, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice [Oral] The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to the order passed by learned Single Judge, whereby CWPOA No.2542 of 2019 titled as Rajinder Singh and Others Versus State of H.P. and Others, filed by the appellants was dismissed on 30.08.2024 by a reasoned order. 2. The challenge as such was to the Select List of the unskilled worker appointed on contract basis in 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan. The argument as such was that the criteria fixed at the time of interview was arbitrary and therefore, the petitioners have been adversely affected. Learned Single Judge has taken pains to record that the petitioners were not as such specifically discriminated and the argument that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Factory Workers/Supervisory Staff provided a different criteria, excluding the Rosin and Turpentine Factory, Nahan, wherein the appointments were taking place. 3. He had noticed that the criteria was placed on the notice board before the interview and 120 candidates were called against 25 posts of unskilled workers. It was further noticed that it was not the case of the writ petitioner that for want of earlier notice, they had not been able to produce the relevant documents, which precluded them from grant of marks under the said criteria and there was nothing on record to show that the comparison of marks, vis-à-vis the selected candidates and the petitioners as such, by their adoption of above criteria had placed them at a better position. 4. The allegations of bias and nepotism against - 3 - the respondents had also not been substantiated and neither there are any requisite pleadings nor any allegations had been substantiated nor any official has been impleaded as party respondent by name. 5. The argument raised that absentees have also been given marks had been clarified that those marks, were on account of the marks obtained in matriculation as per the criteria set and none of the absentee candidates has found place in the Select List. The respondents had taken the plea that whichever certificate has been produced, marks had been given under the prescribed criteria and similar certificates produced by the selected candidates have also been kept in mind. Only 10 marks as such had been given for personality and behavioral traits in communication skills. It was further noticed that after having participated in the selection process, the petitioners are estopped as such to challenge the same. The learned Single Judge kept in mind the fact that the representation was submitted on 20.02.2015 to the General Manager after the publication of Select List and none of the allegations now raised in the writ petition as such had been raised and neither - 4 - there was any lack of confidence in the Selection Committee. 6. It was also noticed that on an earlier occasion, petitioners had filed CWP No.4037 of 2014 and out of the said petitioners, two of them already found part of the Select List. One of the candidates allegedly did not fulfill the physical criteria and still he was selected, but in the absence of any comparative merit position as such qua that candidate, learned Single Judge chose not to interfere in the selection process. 7. The said selection process had initially been advertised way back on 02.06.2012 and at the stage of interview, it had been cancelled vide letter dated 30.08.2014. Resultantly, CWP No.4037 of 2014 titled as Rajinder Singh and Others Versus State of H.P. & Others had been filed, which was decided on 09.12.2014 and the Division Bench directed to quash the cancellation by noting that merely on account of the fact that the Model Code of Conduct had been imposed, the said recruitment process could not be scuttled. It had been brought on record by the Principal Secretary [Forests] that the posts of unskilled workers in the said factory were urgently - 5 - required to be filled up, as it was linked with the production. 8. In these circumstances, the criteria as such was fixed by the committee before the interview which has been reproduced in Para 3 by the learned Single Judge. The Chairman was the General Manager of the Factory and three other members had fixed the criteria for personal interviews on 9th and 10th February, 2015 for selection of candidates, whereby 20 marks as such, which were to be given, were divided under five heads. 9. Apparently, the petitioners in the interview did not secure the said marks and got left out from the zone of selection and therefore, have chosen to challenge the selection process. It is a settled principle that having participated in the process of selection, they cannot now turn around and challenge the same as has been laid down by the Apex Court in Madan Lal & Others Versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Others (1995) 3 SCC 486 and followed in K.A. Nagamani Versus Indian Airlines & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 515. In these circumstances, petitioners as such are estopped moreso when there is no mala fides leveled - 6 - against the selection process. 10. Two of their colleagues as such, who earlier joined them in CWP No.4037 of 2014 to challenge the cancellation of the recruitment process, were successful in the same recruitment process as noticed by the learned Single Judge. 11. It is also settled principle that the Selection Committee as such would be within its purview to fix the criteria, which was done apparently prior to the interview, which was to be conducted and was applied across the board to the persons who were called for interview. Thus, the petitioners only have a right of consideration and having been duly considered and not having found a place in the Select List as such now cannot turn around and challenge the said process of recruitment. 12. The argument that there was a change in the procedure, which has been prescribed, has also been repelled, that on earlier occasion when the selection process had been initiated and the petitioners had been called for interview, there was no such criteria given to them, which would be clear from the earlier call letter - 7 - [Annexure P-2] dated 25.09.2012. Once the earlier recruitment process had been scrapped and the Selection Committee thereafter had fixed a criteria, which was applied to all the aspirants as such, we are of the considered opinion that merely because the petitioners did not find favour on account of the criteria fixed and did not make a grade, they now cannot turn around and challenge the same. 13. The judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on all accounts is well reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity and would not warrant any interference, in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed. 14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. - (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 03, 2025 [Chiranjeev/Himani]