( 2025:HHC:21758 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.118 of 2025 Decided on: 20.05.2025 ____________________________________________________________ Anupam Thakur and another ...Appellants Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others ...Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellants Mr. Vinod K. Thakur and Mr. Mohar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. None for Respondent No. 4 - Commission [now H.P. Rajya Chayan Aayog]. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Appellants, namely Anupam Thakur and Pankaj Kumar, have come up before this Court in Letters Patent Appeal, assailing the judgment dated 26.09.2024 [referred to as Impugned Judgment], passed by Learned Single in CWP No 1649 of 2020, In re: Dinesh Kumar & others versus The State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby, the case of the appellants for appointment as Junior Engineer [Civil] 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 2 - as OBC category candidates was rejected ; and further plea of appointing them from the lapsed panel of the year 2017 was also disallowed by the Writ Court. FACTUAL MATRIX BEFORE WRIT COURT: 2. Before the writ court, three writ petitioners, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Anupam Thakur and Pankaj Kumar, stated that they possessed the qualification of Bachelor of Technology in Civil Engineering. Case set-up in the writ petition is that Respondent No 4-Commission issued Advertisement on 18.10.2016, Annexure P-2, for filling up 168 vacancies of Junior Engineers [Civil] on contract basis, as per the criteria of “Merit-cum-Option-cum-Availability of Post” reflected in advertisement. The advertised posts were liable to be increased. Out of these, 42 vacancies pertained to IPH Department; 100 vacancies for Public Works department; 2 vacancies for HPSIDC; and remaining 24 vacancies pertained to HPSEBL-Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. Pursuant to the issuance of Advertisement on 18.10.2016, the appellants-petitioners submitted Online applications for 6-OBC vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] on contract basis, out 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 3 - of total 100 vacancies, advertised for public works department. 2(i). It is averred that after the commencement of selection process, the father of petitioner no. 3 submitted representation on 01.11.2016, Annexure P-5, and another representation through his relation on 01.06.2017, [Annexure P-6], stating that out of 100 advertised posts of Junior Engineers in Public Works Department atleast 18 vacancies as per the 18% reservation for OBC’s should have been advertised whereas the Respondents have advertised six (6)-OBC vacancies. 2(ii). Respondent No 4-Commission conducted the written test on 30.04.2017. After qualifying the written test, they appeared in the viva-voce conducted by the recruiting agency between 13.07.2017 to 20.07.2017. Based on merit, the final result was declared, wherein, 6-OBC incumbents [who were shown at Serial Nos. 21, 35, 65, 129, 151 and 156] were selected and recommended and thereafter appointed as Junior Engineer (C) in public works department, against advertised six OBC vacancies on 25.08.2017. 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 4 - 2(iii). After having participated in the selection process for six advertised OBC posts, and since the appellants-writ petitioners remained unsuccessful, therefore, the appellants-writ petitioners herein filed an Original Application No. 5845 of 2017 before the Learned State Administrative Tribunal, requesting that out of the total 100 advertised vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) in public works department, Respondents were bound to fill up 18 vacancies of OBC’s, as per 18% reservation for OBC’s instead of filling six (6) OBC vacancies. It was averred that Respondent No 4-Commission had also prepared a Waiting Panel of OBC’s vide Annexure P-13, and though the writ petitioners figured at Serial Nos. 4, 5 and 8 of said panel, yet, they should have been recommended and then appointed against the shortfall (18-6=12) OBC vacancies. It is averred that Original Application No. 5845 of 2017 was disposed of by the Learned Tribunal on 08.01.2019, Annexure P-14, directing the respondents to decide the representation. In response to this, the Respondent No 2-Engineer- in-Chief (PWD) submitted a proposal on 17.08.2019, 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 5 - Annexure P-19, requesting the respondent No 1- Additional Chief Secretary [PW] to give its approval for appointing all the three appellants-writ petitioners as JE (C) against unadvertised or OBC vacancies otherwise available from panel of 2017, so as meet out the shortfall of OBC. It was averred that since nothing was done therefore, writ petitioners submitted a legal notice Annexure P-17 and in response to this, the Respondent No 1-Additional Chief Secretary [PW] directed the Engineer-in-Chief, to take an appropriate action in the matter. 2(iv). It is averred that since no action was taken by the Respondent No 1-ACS, on the proposal sent by Respondent No 2-E-in-C (PW), in terms of the orders 08.01.2019, Annexure P-14, passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 5845 of 2017, therefore, the appellants-petitioners filed another CWP No 2387 of 2019, and the same was disposed of on 04.10.2019, Annexure P-20, with the directions, to the Respondent No1-Additional Chief Secretary (PWD) to examine the matter and take a decision on the proposal dated 17.08.2019, Annexure P-19, so that the claim of 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 6 - the writ petitioners for appointment against three (3)- OBC vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] from panel of 2017 could be decided. 2(v). Incompliance thereto, the aforesaid proposal dated 17.08.2019, Annexure P-19, was rejected by the competent authority on 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22, on the ground, that the benefit of reservation to OBC incumbents has been given by the State Authorities; and since the petitioners had participated in the selection process but remained unsuccessful, therefore, they have no right to assail the selection process, alleging it to be contrary to the reservation policy; and as per the Notification issued by Respondent No. 4-Commission on 15.09.2016, the recommendations were valid till the appointments are offered to the recommended candidates by appointing authority or for a period of one year from the date of said recommendation, whichever is earlier and therefore, the petitioners do not have any right of appointment from lapsed panel. In this backdrop, appellants herein, filed a writ petition, CWP No. 1649 of 2020 assailing the 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 7 - rejection orders dated 06.03.2020, [Annexure P-22] and corrigendum dated 20.03.2020 [Annexure P-25], with the prayer to direct the respondents to accord its approval to the proposal dated 17.08.2019 [Annexure P-19] and to appoint the petitioners as Engineer [Civil] in PWD Department from the date other six (6)-OBC selected incumbents were appointed against advertised OBC vacancies, with all consequential benefits. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES BEFORE WRIT COURT: 3. Respondents No. 2 and 3, being PWD Authorities, filed a Reply-Affidavit with the plea that after participating in selection process and having remained unsuccessful, the petitioners have no right being lower in merit, against the advertised six (6) OBC [UR] vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the department of PWD. Reply-Affidavit further states that the representation dated 01.11.2016, Annexure P-5, and representation dated 01.06.2017, Annexure P-7, were never received by the department, which were alleged to have been submitted by father and relative of one of the petitioners. Reply-Affidavit indicates that reservation to OBC incumbents has been given 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 8 - by the State Authorities from time to time. 3(i). It was averred that the petitioners have no right to seek appointment as Junior Engineer [Civil] on contract basis from waiting panel when, the panel was not to be acted upon after all the recommended candidates stood appointed or after expiry of one year from the date of recommendation, whichever is earlier and moreover, when, all six (6)- OBC incumbents, had joined against the advertised 6 OBC vacancies in PWD department. 3(ii). Regarding the proposal dated 17.08.2019, Annexure P-19, submitted by the Engineer-in-Chief to the Additional Chief Secretary [PW] is concerned, it was stated that the proposal-recommendation for appointing the petitioners from the panel of 2017, cannot be acted upon, when, the panel had lapsed and had become redundant or inoperative after all six OBC recommended incumbents stood appointed in PWD department. Reply Affidavit further states that the appellants-writ petitioner have no right to claim appointment from the waiting panel against any of the unadvertised or other available vacancies 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 9 - without considering claims of other OBC candidates for selection against such vacancies. It is in this background, that a prayer was made for dismissing the writ petition. SEPARATE REPLIES BY RESPONDENTS 1 & 4: 3(iv). Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No 4- Commission have filed separate replies, asserting that the matter relates to Respondents No.2 and 3-PWD Authorities. IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2024: 4. Based on the material on record, the CWP No. 1649 of 2020 was dismissed by Learned Single Judge, disallowing the claim of the appellants /writ-petitioners, for giving benefit of reservation to extent of 18% i.e. 18 vacancies, out of total 100 vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] advertised in Public Works Department and in disallowing the claim for appointment from lapsed waiting panel, in terms of the judgement dated 26.09.2024, {herein referred to as the Impugned Judgement} in the following terms:- “11. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 10 - R.K. Sabharwal and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others, reported in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 745. In this judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to inter alia hold that the expression ‘posts’ and ‘vacancies’ often used in the executive instruction providing for reservations are rather problematical. The words ‘posts’ means an appointment, job, office or employment, i.e. position to which a person is appointed. "Vacancy" means an unoccupied post or office. The plain meaning of the two expressions make it clear that there must be a 'post' in existence to enable the 'vacancy' to occur. The cadre-strength is always measured by the number of posts comprising the cadre. Right to be considered for appointment can only be claimed in respect of a post in a cadre. As a consequence, the percentage of reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts which form the cadre-strength. The concept of 'vacancy' has no relevance in operating the percentage of reservation. 12. Thus, it is evident from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Notification issued by the respondent- State that reservation has to be applied on ‘posts’ and not ‘vacancies’. 13. Incidentally, it is not the case of the petitioners that the cadre strength of Junior Engineer (Civil) in HPPWD is 100. This means that out of the total cadre strength of Junior Engineer (Civil), as 100 vacancies were available, the same were advertised to be filled in the said Department. Now obviously, the reservation has to be applied on the total cadre strength and not on the vacancies. However, the petitioners are misconstruing the vacancies so advertised with the posts and their contention that because 100 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) were advertised, therefore 18 posts ought to be reserved for OBC Category is completely not sustainable in law. 14. Otherwise also, it is not the case of the petitioners that in the overall cadre strength of Junior Engineers, the reservation that 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 11 - was granted to OBC Category was not in-conformity with the percentage to which they are so entitled to and demand of 18 posts to be reserved was in that background. 15. Their demand was on a simple calculation of the number of posts advertised with the percentage of reservation for OBC Category. This, as already observed hereinabove, is a complete misreading and misconstruction not only of the instructions issued by the State Government, dated 20.08.1998 (Annexure P-4), but also of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, reported in R.K. Sabharwal and Others Versus State of Punjab and Others’ case (Supra). 16. Accordingly, in view of above observations, as this Court does not finds any merit in present Writ Petition and further as this Court does not finds any infirmity in the orders under challenge, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that as far as Annexure P-22 and P-25 are concerned, this Court does not finds any infirmity therein also, for the reason that it could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the recommendation of the Commission is valid till the appointments are offered to the candidates by the Appointing Authority for a period of one year from the date of recommendation, whichever is earlier and in this light of the matter and further more, in light of the adjudications made hereinabove also, the petitioners were not entitled for any relief.” GROUNDS AND CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANTS IN LPA: 5. Out of three writ petitioners, two of them have assailed the Impugned Judgment dated 26.9.2024, passed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground, 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 12 - firstly, the State Authorities have not given benefit of 18% reservation by not filling up 18 vacancies of OBC’s while making recruitment for 100 advertised vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department whereas only six OBC vacancies were advertised and it was asserted that the cadre of Junior Engineer [Civil] comprised of 1042 posts, out of which 469 posts were meant for direct recruits and as per 18% share, 84 posts fell to the share of OBC category whereas upto the year 2017 only 63-OBC posts were filled-up and about 27-28 posts meant for OBC incumbents were available ; and secondly, the rejection orders dated 6.3.2020, Annexure P-22 and corrigendum vide Annexure P-25, in not concurring with the proposal dated 17.8.2019 (Annexure P-19), for appointing the appellants-writ petitioners as JE© in PWD department against any of the unadvertised or otherwise available OBC vacancies from waiting panel of 2017 was erroneous. 6. Heard, Mr. Vinod K. Thakur, Learned Counsel for the appellants and Ms. Priyanka Chauhan, Learned Deputy Advocate General, for the Respondents-State. 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 13 - ANALYSIS: 7. Taking into account, the entirety of facts and circumstances and material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition ; and in upholding the rejection orders dated 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22 and corrigendum vide Annexure P-25, needs no interference, even in instant appeal, by this Court, for the following reasons:- UNDISPUTED FACTUAL MATRIX: 8. Undisputed factual matrix is that the Respondent No 4-Commission issued an Advertisement on 18.10.2016, Annexure P-2, for filling 168 vacancies of Junior Engineers [Civil] on contract basis and 100 vacancies pertained to Public Works department. Out of 100 vacancies, there were six (6) vacancies for OBC category candidates. Claim is that though petitioner applied for advertised six OBC vacancies, but as per 18% reservation for OBC’s, atleast 18 vacancies should have been advertised for OBCs. Pursuant to the commencement of selection process, 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 14 - the Respondent No 4-Commission conducted written test on 30.04.2017. After qualifying the written test, they appeared in the viva-voce conducted between 13.07.2017 to 20.07.2017. Based on merit, the final result was declared, wherein, six (6)-OBC incumbents were recommended as Junior Engineer (C) in public works department, against the advertised six OBC vacancies, and these incumbents were appointed as such on 25.08.2017, whereas, the appellants-writ petitioners were not selected, due to lower merit. It is stated that the Respondent No. 4-Commission prepared a Waiting Panel of 9-OBC incumbents vide Annexure P-13, and though the appellants- writ petitioners figured at Serial Nos. 4, 5 and 8 of waiting panel, yet, they should have been recommended/appointed against the shortfall of 12 (18-6=12) OBC vacancies. Admittedly, in pursuance to the directions in Original Application No. 5845 of 2017 dated 08.01.2019, Annexure P-14, Respondent No 2-Engineer-in-Chief (PWD) submitted a proposal on 17.08.2019, Annexure P-19, requesting Respondent No 1-Additional Chief Secretary [PW] to give its 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 15 - approval for appointing all the three appellants- writ petitioners as JE (C) against available OBC vacancies from the panel of 2017. Since nothing was done, therefore, the appellants-petitioners filed another CWP No. 2387 of 2019, which was disposed of on 04.10.2019, Annexure P-20, with directions to Respondent No 1-Additional Chief Secretary (PWD) to examine and take a decision on the proposal dated 17.08.2019, Annexure P-19 and incompliance to the directions of this Court, the competent authority passed an order on 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22, rejecting the proposal, on the ground, that the benefit of reservation to OBC incumbents has been given by the State Authorities ; and since the appellants- writ petitioners participated in selection but remained unsuccessful, therefore, they have no right to assail the selection process, by alleging it to be contrary to the reservation policy; and as per the Notification dated 15.09.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 4- Commission, the recommendations were valid till the appointments are offered to recommended candidates by appointing authority or for a period of one 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 16 - year from the date of recommendation, whichever is earlier ; and the appellants-petitioners do not have any right to seek appointment from waiting panel, against any unadvertised or other available vacancies without considering claims of other OBC candidates for selection against such vacancies. The rejection orders dated 6.3.2020, [Annexure P-22] and the corrigendum dated 20.03.2020 [Annexure P-25], were assailed in writ petition with the prayer to direct the respondents to accord approval to the proposal dated 17.08.2019 [Annexure P-19] by appointing the appellants-petitioners as Junior Engineer [Civil] in PWD Department from the date six selected and recommended OBC incumbents were appointed against the advertised OBC vacancies, with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid writ petition i.e. CWP No. 1649 of 2020, upon due adjudication, was dismissed by Learned Single Judge 26.09.2024, by upholding the rejection orders. CLAIM FOR APPOINTMENT AGAINST OBC’s- VACANCIES- UNTENABLE: 8(i). First contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioner is that the State 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 17 - Authorities have not given benefit of 18% reservation, by not filling up 18 vacancies of OBC’s while making recruitment for 100 advertised vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department whereas only six (6) OBC vacancies were advertised, by asserting that though the cadre of Junior Engineer [Civil] comprised of 1042 posts, out of which 469 posts were meant for direct recruits and as per 18% share, 84 posts fell to the share of OBC category and up to the year 2017, only 63-OBC posts were filled-up and about 27-28 posts of OBC’s were available. The above contention is misconceived for the reason, that the firstly, the provision enshrined in Articles 16 [4] of Constitution of India is only an enabling provision; and secondly, the appellants writ petitioners, being reserved OBC category persons do not have fundamental right to claim reservation ; and thirdly, the State Authorities are not bound to provide reservation to reserved categories, including OBC’s in every selection process; and fourthly, it is not the case of the appellants-petitioners that 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 18 - no reservation has been provided to OBC candidates ; and fifthly, it is the own case of the appellants that State Authorities have advertised OBC vacancies from time to time ; and sixthly, the plea of Learned Counsel for the appellants that out of total 168 advertised vacancies, which included 100 vacancies of Junior Engineer [C], atleast 18 vacancies, as per 18% reservation for OBC’s should have been filled up in PWD whereas only six (6)-OBC vacancies were advertised is misconceived and without merit for the reason, that the imbalance, if any, cannot be redressed in one go i.e. in a year or two years. While resorting to recruitment, a balance has to be carved out, so that due-permissible representation is extended to reserved categories vis-à-vis unreserved categories. While resorting to recruitment, the State Authorities are neither bound to nor can resort to extending reservation to one reserved categories [i.e. OBC’s] so as to eclipse the reservation admissible to other reserved categories [SC’s, STs] and other unreserved-open category, in terms of the mandate of law, of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 19 - of Indra Sawhney etc. vs. Union of India and Others, (1992) Suppl (3) SCC 217 ; and seventhly, even on facts of instant matter, the appellants-writ petitioners, who belong to OBC-reserved category have neither any right nor any locus to claim appointment automatically against any of the claimed shortfall 12 OBC vacancies in the present selection or against otherwise available 27-28 OBC vacancies upto the year 2017 [as is being claimed as per 18% reservation for OBC’s], and the same shall result in imbalance amongst other reserved vis-à-vis unreserved categories; and eighthly, even a perusal of the material on record [Annexure P-1 & P-2 in writ file] reveals that out of the total 168 advertised vacancies of Junior Engineer (C), including 100 vacancies of Public Works Department, once all advertised 22 OBC vacancies were duly filled-up, on the recommendations made by the Respondent No 4-Commission, by all departments, in pursuance to same selection, in which, appellants- writ petitioners herein, had duly participated but due to their lower merit they remained unsuccessful vis- à-vis those OBC candidates who being higher in 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 20 - merit, were selected and appointed against advertised OBC vacancies. FAILURE TO ASSERT CLAIM FOR RESERVATION {18% FOR OBC’s} NEGATES THE PLEA IN VIEW ON PRINCIPLE OF ACQUIESCENCE: 9. Contention of Learned Counsel for appellant that the petitioner no 3 submitted a representation through his father on 01.11.2016, Annexure P-5 and another representation through relative on 01.06.2017, Annexure P-7, that out of the total advertised 168 vacancies of Junior Engineers [Civil], on contract basis, including 100 vacancies of Public Works department whereas the respondents had undertaken recruitment only for six (6) vacancies for OBC category instead of 18 vacancies for OBC candidates in PWD. The above contention is misconceived, for the reason, firstly, that selection process for filling the vacancies for Junior Engineer (civil) commenced on the issuance of the advertisement on 18.10.2016, Annexure P-2 and knowing the terms and conditions that 6 OBC vacancies were sought to be filled in PWD department, the appellants submitted applied for the advertised reserved-OBC vacancies in the PWD 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 21 - department. The appellants-writ petitioners participated in selection process and appeared in the written test on 30.04.2017 and upon, qualifying the written test, the appellants appeared in the viva-voce conducted between 13.07.2017 to 20.07.2017. On declaration of final result, all the six (6)-OBC incumbents were selected, recommended and then appointed as Junior Engineer (C) in public works department on 25.08.2017 whereas, the appellants-writ petitioners having lower merit were not selected as per disclosed and known recruitment procedure and the terms and conditions including number of vacancies, sought to be filled for unreserved as well as reserved vacancies, including OBC vacancies; and secondly, once appellants-writ petitioners had knowledge to the norms, terms and conditions and other prescriptions {including number of vacancies sought to be filled for various categories, including OBC vacancies and by virtue of their tacit and passive consent had participated in the selection for reserved OBC vacancies but after participation they remained unsuccessful due to lower merit, then, the plea set-up in the writ petition, which is reiterated 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 22 - in this intra-court appeal that instead of filling six (6)-OBC vacancies of JE © in the Public Works Department atleast 18 vacancies of JE © as per 18% reservation out of 100 vacancies should have been filled up is without any substance, in view of the principle of acquiescence and the established norm of approbation and reprobation ; and thirdly, even the material on record reveals that the appellants have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material to show that the appellants-writ petitioners had asserted a claim for giving reservation against 18 vacancies out of 100 vacancies advertised in PWD department. In absence of any such material, this Court, has no hesitation to hold that the appellants- writ petitioners herein, have neither asserted nor claimed reservation for advertising or for filling more vacancies in present selection vis-à-vis the vacancies advertised since the date of issuance of advertisement on 18.12.2016 or during the stage of holding the written test on 30.4.2017 or even at the stage of conducting interviews/viva-voce from 13.07.2017 to 20.07.2017 and even prior to declaration of final 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 23 - result and upto the stage of recommendation/resultant appointment of six (6) OBC candidates on 25.08.2017; and lastly, the tacit and passive consent of the appellants to the disclosed terms and conditions and other prescriptions including the number of reserved OBC vacancies in recruitment notice {Annexure P-1 in writ file} and failure to assert a claim for filling 18 vacancies as per 18% reservation share for OBC’s after the commencement of selection process till culmination of said process, upon recommending the selected incumbents, including 6 OBC candidates for appointment in the PWD department, who stood appointed as JE’s on 25.8.2017 then, the principle of acquiescence, approbation and reprobation coupled with slackness, inaction and lethargy of appellants is enough to negate the claim of the appellants, as was sought in the writ petition and in the instant intra-court appeal, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Union of India vs N Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25, in the following terms:- 24. We have already discussed the relationship 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 24 - between acquiescence on the one hand and delay and laches on the other. Acquiescence would mean a tacit or passive acceptance. It is implied and reluctant consent to an act. In other words, such an action would qualify a passive assent. Thus, when acquiescence takes place, it presupposes knowledge against a particular act. From the knowledge comes passive acceptance, therefore instead of taking any action against any alleged refusal to perform the original contract, despite adequate knowledge of its terms, and instead being allowed to continue by consciously ignoring it and thereafter proceeding further, acquiescence does take place. 25. As a consequence, it reintroduces a new implied agreement between the parties. Once such a situation arises, it is not open to the party that acquiesced itself to insist upon the compliance of the original terms. Hence, what is essential, is the conduct of the parties. We only dealt with the distinction involving a mere acquiescence. When acquiescence is followed by delay, it may become laches… 26. ….They would only mean that no party can be allowed to accept and reject the same thing, and thus one cannot blow hot and cold. The principle behind the doctrine of election is inbuilt in the concept of approbate and reprobate. Once again, it is a principle of equity coming under the contours of common law. Therefore, he who knows that if he objects to an instrument, he will not get the benefit he wants cannot be allowed to do so while enjoying the fruits. One cannot take advantage of one part while rejecting the rest. A person cannot be allowed to have the benefit of an instrument while questioning the same. Such a party either has to affirm or disaffirm the transaction. This principle has 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 25 - to be applied with more vigour as a common law principle, if such a party actually enjoys the one part fully and on near completion of the said enjoyment, thereafter questions the other part. An element of fair play is inbuilt in this principle. It is also a species of estoppel dealing with the conduct of a party….” MISREPRESENTATION AND DISTORTED FACTS- DISENTITLES APPELLANTS FOR RELIEF: 9(i). Appellants have set up a case before the Writ Court that one of the appellant i.e. petitioner no 3 had submitted a representation through his father on 01.11.2016, Annexure P-5 and then another representation through his relative on 01.06.2017, Annexure P-7, asserting a claim that out of total 168 advertised vacancies of Junior Engineers [Civil], on contract basis, which included 100 vacancies of Public Works department, atleast 18 vacancies in PWD department should have been filled whereas only six (6) OBC vacancies were advertised. Perusal of the Reply Affidavit, filed by the official respondents had specifically denied the receipt of any of these representations dated 01.11.2016, Annexure P-5 and representation dated 01.06.2017, Annexure P-7, with the specific stand that these 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 26 - representations appears to be forged and fabricated, just to make out a false case, as an after-thought against the State Authorities. Even, the appellants have not placed on record any cogent and convincing material to establish that these representations were in-fact and truly submitted. In the absence of any material to establish that that representations were in fact made, this Court, is left with no option but to conclude that the appellants-writ petitioners have placed distorted and incorrect facts, so as to secure favorable orders or to deceive the Court cannot be tolerated. The appellant has not come with clean hands. The conduct of appellants-writ petitioner reveals suppression leading to abuse of process of law. In these circumstances, this Court would have imposed exemplary costs on the appellants, but in peculiar facts of this case, this Court takes a lenient view and refrains from imposing exemplary costs, due to subsequent events that out of three writ petitioners, namely, Dinesh Kumar, Anupam Thakur and Pankaj Kumar, one of them, namely Dinesh Kumar, is stated to have been selected as 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 27 - Junior Engineer in subsequent examination and two others-writ petitioners-appellants herein, assert to have been working on outsourced basis [as per Reply-Affidavit] and therefore, in peculiar facts, this Court refrains from passing adversarial orders, qua costs on the appellants in the instant proceedings. A litigant, alike the appellants(s) cannot play hide and seek with the Court. A false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings intentionally to mislead the Court cannot be tolerated. The conduct of the appellant(s) in placing distorted or twisted facts and in not making full and fair, candid and clear disclosure of all the facts and in misplacing non-existing facts with intention to seek favorable orders or to mislead this Court, is sufficient to dis-entitle the appellants, for the equitable and discretionary relief in Article 226 and thereafter in intra-court proceedings, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Hari Narain vs Badri Dass, AIR 1963 SC 1558 [Para 7]; and in Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449; and in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 28 - v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 1 SCC 560 ; and in K. D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481 [Paras 34 to 39] ; and in Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114, [Paras 9-24] and in Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557 [Paras 48-50]; and ; and in Abhudya Sanstha vs Union of India , (2011) 6 SCC 145; [Para 22] and the above principle was reiterated in K Jayaram & Ors vs Bangalore Development Authority (2022) 12 SCC 815 [Para 10] and in Auroville Foundation vs Natasha Storey, 2025 INSC 348 [Paras 9 & 10] that the attempt to deceive the Court by placing fabricated and forged document was deprecated; and the “doctrine of clean hands and non-suppression of material facts is applicable with full force, to every proceedings before any judicial forum” and a litigant, alike the appellants-writ petitioners, who did not approach this Court with clean hands, by pleading incorrect and distorted facts, {alleged representations, which as per the Reply affidavit of official respondents, were never received but appear to be fabricated, with the intention to 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 29 - seek favorable orders} was deprecated, and in these circumstances, the aforesaid improper conduct of the appellants, is sufficient to disallow the equitable and discretionary relief to the appellants, in Article 226 proceedings and now in Intra-Court appeal. Accordingly, the plea of the appellants herein, being misconceived, was rightly disallowed by the Learned Single Judge, is upheld in instant proceedings. APPELLANTS HAVING REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASSAIL SELECTION: 9(ii). The Respondent No 4-Commision commenced the selection process for filling up 168 vacancies of Junior Engineer (Civil) by issuance of advertisement on 18.10.2016, Annexure P-2 and after knowing the terms and conditions that 6 OBC vacancies, out of 100 vacancies were sought to be filled in the PWD department, the appellants applied for being considered for recruitment against the advertised six (6)-OBC vacancies in PWD department. The appellants -writ petitioners participated in selection process and they appeared in the written test held on 30.04.2017. After qualifying the written test, they appeared in viva-voce which was conducted between 13.07.2017 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 30 - to 20.07.2017. On declaration of final result, all six (6)-OBC incumbents due to their higher merit were selected, recommended and then appointed as Junior Engineer (C) in public works department on 25.08.2017 whereas the appellant-writ petitioners due to their lower merit were not selected, against advertised six-OBC vacancies. In the above backdrop, once the appellants -writ petitioners herein, have taken calculated steps by participating in selection process, in pursuance of the disclosed procedure, norms and number of reserved vacancies as contained in the Advertisement dated 18.10.2016, Annexure P-2, then, after having remained unsuccessful due to their lower merit, then the appellants-writ petitioners have no right to assail the selection process/method, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejvir Singh Sodhi versus State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, (2023) 17 SCC 147, in the following terms:- “38. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 31 - the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law: 38.1 In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently. 39. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. In other words, simply because the result of the selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process, at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been entertained in light of the principle of waiver and acquiescence.” Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the principle that after having remained unsuccessful, 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 32 - the participated candidate has no right to assail the selection criteria or the selection process or the selection method or selection policy in Union of India and Others Versus Air Commodore NK Sharma, 2023 SCC Online SC 1673, in the following terms:- “65. Challenging the basis of promotion after having participated in the process on consideration of promotion and having been declared unsuccessful thereunder, is not a valid ground to impugn the policy/method. Repeatedly, this Court has held that such challenges cannot be allowed. On this, we may refer to certain past instances: 66. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey it was observed:- “17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the appellants had 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 participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.” 67. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi it 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 33 - was observed:- 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. 69. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the Respondent’s challenge was barred at first instance, as he participated in the Promotion Board of 2015 and only challenged the non-formation of a policy for filling up the vacancy of AVM JAG (Air), finding himself to be unsuccessful in securing a promotion thereto.” In view of the above discussion, once the appellants-writ petitioners, by virtue of tacit and passive consent had accepted the disclosed norms or the method or policy or procedure of selection (including disclosed OBC vacancies) as mentioned in the advertisement and participated without any demur or protest, therefore, after having remained unsuccessful due to lower merit, the appellants have no right to impugn the same. In this scenario, the plea of the appellants herein, being misconceived, was validly disallowed by the Learned Single Judge, and the same is upheld in instant proceedings. CLAIM OF APPELLANTS FOR APPOINTMENT AGAINST UNADVERTISED OR OTHER AVAILABLE OBC VACANCIES FROM WAITING PANEL OF 2017- IMPERMISSIBLE: 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 34 - 10. Second contention of the Learned Counsel is that though Respondent No. 4-Commission prepared a Waiting Panel of 9-OBC incumbents vide Annexure P-13, and the appellants were placed at Serial Nos. 4, 5 and 8 of the waiting panel but the Respondents were supposed to fill up 18 OBC vacancies out of total 100 advertised vacancies in Public Works Department whereas only six (6)-OBC vacancies were advertised and therefore, shortfall of 12 OBC (18-6= 12), vacancies deserve to be filled by recommending the appellants herein from the waiting panel, against the unadvertised or otherwise available vacant OBC posts. The above plea of the appellants-petitioners for recommending them for appointment against the unadvertised or otherwise available OBC vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] from waiting panel prepared by Respondent No.4-Commission in the month of July-August, 2017, is without merit, for the reason, that firstly, in terms of Notification dated 15.09.2016 amending Rule 16 of HPPSC [Rules of Business and Procedure] Rules 2004, the recommendation 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 35 - made by the Respondent-Commission was to be valid till the appointments are offered to the candidates by the appointing authority or for the period of one year from the date of recommendations whichever is earlier ; and secondly, based on the Notification dated 15.09.2016, all the originally advertised 168 vacancies including 11 additional vacancies i.e. total of 179 vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil], which included 100 vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil], including advertised six (6) OBC posts were filled- up on 25.8.2017 i.e. within a period of one year from the date of recommendation of OBC candidates; and thirdly, waiting panel could not operate when, all the recommended reserved-OBC incumbents stood appointed and had joined; and fourthly, the claim waiting panel could only operate when, any of the recommended/appointed candidate did not join, which situation did not exist in the instant case; and fifthly, the waiting panel cannot be permitted to operate endlessly; and sixthly, the appellant could not claim any right of appointment after waiting panel was rendered inoperative on joining of recommended 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 36 - /appointed OBC incumbents or after the expiry of one year period {whichever is earlier] ; and seventhly, claim of appellants for appointment from the waiting list, which was rendered inoperative {on joining of all recommended OBC incumbents] is impermissible, when, the waiting panel, cannot be invoked so as to treat it as an endless source of recruitment or infinite source of appointment; and eighthly, even the appellants-writ petitioners have no right to claim appointment from waiting panel against unadvertised vacancies or otherwise available vacant posts of OBC posts automatically; and ninthly, the mere availability of vacancy or such like OBC vacancies, will not confer any automatic right of appointment when, all vacancies are to be filled up only after complying with the mandate of public appointments enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the future or unadvertised vacancies cannot be permitted to be filled by back-door i.e. without resorting to and without making them to undergo selection along with the other eligible OBC category candidates, and permitting such plea will frustrate 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 37 - the entire fabric of public employment as per the constitutional scheme despite the waiting panel, having become inoperative or had lapsed and become redundant. The appellants have no vested right for automatic appointment from the waiting list of 2017 against any of the future or subsequent vacancies; and lastly, the prayer of appellants is not tenable in view of the mandate of law (infra) declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 10(i). While dealing with the claim of a person, who was seeking appointment from amongst the panel belatedly or after expiry of one year or after the joining of the recommended candidates could not be acted upon, as per the mandate of law in State of Bihar and others Versus Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 12 SCC 561 in the following terms:- “9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel. 11. In State of U.P. and Others. v. Harish 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 38 - Chandra this Court stated the law in the following terms: (SCC p. 313, para 9) "9. Coming to the merits of the matter, in view of the Statutory Rules contained in Rule 26 of the Recruitment Rules the conclusion is irresistible that a select list prepared under the Recruitment Rules has its life only for one year from the date of the preparation of the list and it expires thereafter.” 12. Yet again in Surinder v. State of Punjab this Court stated the law thus : (SCC p. 494, para 15) "15. Prem Singh case was decided on the facts of that case and those facts do not hold good in the present case. In the case of Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. this Court has explained the scope and intent of a waiting list and how it is to operate in service jurisprudence. It cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment filling up the vacancies not advertised. The Court also did not approve the view of the High Court that since vacancies had not been worked out properly, therefore, the candidates from the waiting list were liable to be appointed. Candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent that when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and the waiting list is still operative.” 13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the waitlist must be acted upon having 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 39 - regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.” 10(ii). Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Rishi Mehra and Others Versus State of Punjab and another, (2013) 12 SCC 243, in the following terms:- “15. The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 1986, Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB, Ashok Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board, Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Madan Lal v. State of J&K, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, State of J&K v. Sanjeev Kumar, State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, Ram Avtar Patwari v. State of Haryana and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi. 19. In Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam this Court held that once the appointments are made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and those who are placed below the last appointee cannot claim appointment against the posts which subsequently become available. Paragraph 33 of the judgment which contains discussion on this issue is reproduced below: (SCC pp. 394-95, para 33) “33. At the outset it should be noticed that the select list prepared by APSC 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 40 - could be used to fill the notified vacancies and not future vacancies. If the requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts, the State cannot appoint more than n the number of posts advertised, even though APSC had prepared a select list of 64 candidates. The select list got exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled. Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed candidates have no right to claim appointment to any vacancy in regard to which selection was not held. The fact that evidently and admittedly the names of the appellants appeared in the select list dated 17-7-2000 below the persons who have been appointed on merit against the said 27 vacancies, and as such they could not have been appointed in excess of the number of posts advertised as the currency of select list had expired as soon as the number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore, appointments beyond the number of posts advertised would amount to filling up future vacancies meant for direct candidates in violation of quota rules. Therefore, the appellants are not entitled to claim any relief for themselves….” 10(iii). In a similar fact-situation and in terms of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meena Sharma Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, (2020) 15 SCC 648, it has been held that the panel cannot be acted upon after a long lapse and a waiting list-panel cannot have an infinite life, so as to operate at an uncertain future date, in the following terms:- 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 41 - “18. Apart from this, the appellant was regularized in service in 2013 before the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that she was not eligible for appointment on the ground that she did not belong to the revenue village. The VEC took a bona fide decision to draw up a combined list for the two villages because Chak Koura had no school. Moreover, the challenge to the appointment of the appellant will not be of any benefit to the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent cannot claim a right of appointment on the basis of a Select List of 2003 after a lapse of sixteen years. The Select List cannot have any indefinite life so as to be operated at an uncertain future date…” Notably, all the selected and recommended incumbents for advertised six (6) OBC vacancies in PWD department were appointed and they had also joined and no OBC vacancy existed due to non-joining of recommended candidates. Even the waiting panel was to remain inforce for an outer period of one year from the date of recommendation. The life of the waiting list-panel was dependent upon the fulfilment of either of the alternative twin contingencies, {joining of recommended candidates or period of one year, whichever is earlier}. That being so, the claim of appellants for appointment from the waiting list of 2017 either against the 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 42 - unadvertised or otherwise available OBC vacancies despite the fact that the waiting panel had lapsed or had become inoperative/redundant/defunct panel on expiry of one year {in July/August 2018} and when all the advertised six (6) OBC vacancies in public works department stood filled up, due to the joining of recommended OBC incumbents. The claim of the appellants for appointment against unadvertised or otherwise available OBC vacancies cannot be permitted, when, public employment is to be made only after resorting to the Constitutional Scheme in Articles 14 and 16 i.e. by advertising posts, inviting applications, determining comparative merit and then in selecting the most meritorious candidate(s). Permitting the claim of the appellants herein, shall certainly result in giving back door appointment in total disregard of and dehors the constitutional scheme, and such an action would also deprive other eligible OBC candidates of their fundamental right to be considered for appointment against available OBC vacancies in future, suffers from patent illegality. The claim of a litigant, alike 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 43 - appellants cannot be accepted so as to perpetuate illegality. Further, once waiting panel had become inoperative or invalid or redundant, due to the fulfilment of either of the twin contingencies as mentioned in the Notification issued by Respondent no 4-recruiting agency on 15.09.2016 then, the appellants have neither any right nor any valid claim for appointment for the reason, that the waiting panel cannot be treated as a perennial and infinite source of recruitment so as to fill up future vacancies, which were not yet advertised and without considering the claims of other eligible OBC candidates, as in the instant matter. Plea of the appellants herein, for appointment dehors the constitutional scheme of public employment is impermissible. Accordingly, the contention of Learned Counsel for the appellant, being misconceived, was negated by the Learned Single Judge, is upheld in instant proceedings. NO CHALLENGE TO INSTRUCTIONS DATED 15.09.2016 UNDER RULE 16 OF HPPSC [RULES OF BUSINESS & PROCEDURE RULES 2004]: 11. Pursuant to the commencement of selection 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 44 - process, the Respondent No. 4-Commission [now H P Rajya Chayan Aayog], Hamirpur, issued a Notification on 15.09.2016 amending Rule 16 of HPPSC [Rules of Business and Procedure] Rules 2004, providing that waiting panel shall be valid till recommended candidates were appointed by appointing authority or for a period of one year from the date of recommendations whichever is earlier. In the light of the Notification dated 15.09.2016, since all six advertised OBC vacancies stood filled up in the month of July-August, 2017 and no OBC vacancy remained unfilled due to non-joining of recommended incumbents then, the appellants-petitioners have neither any right nor any claim for appointment against any unadvertised or otherwise available OBC vacancies from the waiting Panel [Annexure P-13] in contravention of and dehors the Notification dated 15.09.2016 [as referred to in rejection orders dated 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22]. Moreover, the appellants have not laid any challenge to the said notification and in absence of any challenge thereto, the claim for appointment, dehors the extant notification cannot 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 45 - be permitted. Accordingly, the plea of the appellants is without merit and the same is accordingly turned down. REASONING GIVEN BY LEARNED SINGH JUDGE UPHELD: 12. Impugned judgement dated 26.09.2024 is based on the mandate of law in the case of R.K. Sabharwal and Others versus State of Punjab and Others, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745 and the Instructions issued by the State Government on 20.08.1998, Annexure P-4 in the writ file, needs no interference, for the reason, that Learned Single Judge had recorded specific findings that right to be considered for appointment cannot be claimed in respect of post in a cadre. It was further held that percentage reservation has to be worked out in relation to the number of posts, which forming the cadre strength and not to vacancies. The plea of appellants-petitioners for 18% reservation, claiming filling up of 18 OBC vacancies against 100 vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] in Public Works Department, was rightly held to be untenable when, reservation cannot be claimed or granted or applied against 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 46 - vacancies. 12(i). Learned Single Judge had further held that the appellants-writ petitioners have claimed 18% reservation for OBCs against advertised vacancies, by misrepresenting and misconstruction of Instructions issued by the State Authorities on 20.08.1998. Learned Single Judge had further held that the claim of the appellants-writ petitioners for appointment from the waiting panel, Annexure P-13, was misconceived when, all recommended candidates, including the OBC incumbents stood appointed and in such an eventuality, the panel could not operate. 12(ii). Even otherwise, once the appellants had participated in the selection for the advertised OBC vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] and they could find place in merit list, due to lower merit and therefore, were not recommended then, in such a situation, the appellants-petitioners neither have any right nor any valid claim for appointment either against any of the unadvertised vacancies or the vacancies otherwise available, without undergoing and without facing selection in accordance with law. 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 47 - Permitting the claim of the appellants, shall certainly amount to back door recruitment and shall also frustrate and defeat the right of other eligible OBC candidates who were awaiting the filling up of such vacancies, in future. Waiting panel cannot be an infinite source of recruitment, so as to operate endlessly. Claim of the appellants for appointment from the waiting list was not tenable on facts and in law when, all advertised reserved-OBC vacancies, stood filled up, due to which the waiting panel was rendered and became inoperative or lapsed and redundant. Claim of appellants for recommendation/appointment from the waiting list and the merit position reflected therein, was tenable, only if any of the recommended candidates did not join and not otherwise. Such a situation or eventuality was absent and did not exist in the instant case. Mere availability of OBC vacancies will not confer an automatic right on the appellants herein to seek recommendation and appointment against any such vacancies, dehors the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 48 - 12(iii). Further, the appellants having accepted the disclosed norms, conditions, procedure and other prescriptions including the number of the advertised vacancies had participated in the aforesaid selection, but had remained unsuccessful due to lower merit, then, such unsuccessful incumbents-appellants cannot be permitted to turn around and now question the disclosed and accepted method, criteria, terms and conditions and other prescriptions {including number of vacancies} by setting-up a new claim altogether that the appellants-OBC candidates should have been given representation against 18 vacancies, as per 18 % reservation for OBC’s in the PWD department instead of filling only six (6)-OBC vacancies when, the appellants failed to raise any such plea after commencement of selection process on 18.10.2016, Annexure P-2, till its culmination in July-August, 2017, Annexure P-9 [colly]. Even, the plea of the appellant(s) that the representations were made vide Annexure P-5 & Annexure P-7, was specifically denied by the State Authorities, to have not been received by the department. Accordingly, Impugned Judgment 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 49 - dated 26.09.2024, being well reasoned and passed after due appreciation of the facts and law, needs no interference in these proceedings. PROPOSAL DATED 17.08.2019, ANNEXURE P-19 VALIDLY REJECTED ON 06.03.2020, ANNEXURE P-22] 13. Another contention, of the Learned Counsel for the appellants that though Respondent No 2- Engineer-in-Chief [PWD] had forwarded a proposal to the Respondent No.1-Principal Secretary [PW] on 17.08.2019 vide Annexure P-19, seeking its approval for filling-up 3 vacancies of Junior Engineer [Civil] falling to share of OBCs from the waiting panel of 2017 was rejected on 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22, erroneously. Above contention of Learned Counsel for appellants-petitioners is misconceived, for the reason, that mere forwarding of a case by the Respondent No.2-Engineer-in-Chief to Respondent No-1 Additional Chief Secretary [PW] on 17.08.2019, Annexure P-19, will not confer an ipso-facto right on the appellants herein, for being appointed, for the reason, that the aforesaid proposal was dehors the Notification dated 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 50 - 15.09.2016 issued by Respondent No.4-Commission [as referred to in rejection orders dated 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22]. The proposal dated 17.08.2019 was validly rejected on 06.03.2020, Annexure P-22 and the corrigendum vide Annexure P-25, as the claim of the appellants for appointment from the waiting panel of 2017 against the unadvertised vacancies is untenable, for the reason that the waiting list is not a perennial or infinite source of recruitment and the lapsed or defunct or inoperative waiting panel cannot be permitted to operate endlessly and that too, when, the acceptance of the prayer of the appellants shall result in back-door appointment without considering the claims of other eligible OBC candidates, which shall result in defeating the entire fabric of constitutional scheme of public employment in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the contention of the appellants is untenable and accordingly, the Impugned judgement passed by the Learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition and in upholding the rejection orders needs no interference in instant proceedings. 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 51 - CONTENTION OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL: 14. Learned State Counsel has supported the Impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2024, with the plea that appellants-writ petitioners participated in the selection process but due to lower merit, were not recommended for 6 vacancies of OBC in PWD. Even the rejection orders, negating the proposal was valid by contending that such a proposal could not be approved dehors the Instructions dated 15.09.2016. Moreover, the appellants had no right to seek appointment, by a back door methodology, without considering the claims of other OBC candidates and that too against future vacancies. Further such a claim was asserted to be untenable, when, the waiting panel had elapsed or had become inoperative or had also become redundant. 15. No other point was raised or pressed. 16. In view of the material on record in the writ file and upon analyzing the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered view, that the Impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge, does not suffer from 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 52 - any infirmity, perversity or illegality and same needs no interference, in these proceedings. CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS 17. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant Letters Patent Appeal, is dismissed, in the following terms:- (i) Instant appeal i.e. LPA No. 118 of 2025, Anupam Thakur and another versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, is dismissed ; (ii) The Impugned Judgment dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1649 of 2020, titled as Dinesh Kumar & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, is upheld; and (iii) Parties shall bear their own costs. In aforesaid terms, the instant appeal and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Ranjan Sharma) Chief Justice Judge May 20, 2025 [Bhardwaj] 2025:HHC:21758 ) - 53 -