2025:HHC:30240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA LPA No.196 of 2025 Decided on: 03.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Sanjay Kumar ...Appellant..... 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 petitioner: Mr. Mohit Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Priyanka Chauhdn, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 & 2-State. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Paresh Sharma, Advocate, for Ms. Vandana Misra, Advocate, for respondent No.4. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice[Oral] The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5877 of 2022, titled as Sanjay Kumar versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 25.11.2024. 2. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not have requisite certificate as per the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:30240 - 2 - terms of the Advertisement, since the requirement was Diploma/Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade from a recognized ITI for the post of Bee Keeper. 3. Resultantly, it was held that it was not for the writ Court to dwell into this issue and the argument that the Certificate Annexure P-5, is equivalent to the Diploma Certificate, as per the Advertisement, was not accepted, as the advertisement was neither vague nor cryptic, in any manner, and laid down that an incumbent who possessed the necessary certificate from a recognized ITI is eligible for consideration of appointment. 4. Counsel for the appellant has tried to convince us that certificate, as such, would entitle him for consideration for the said post, as it was one year Vocational Training Course on Horticulture Management with respondent No.4- University and, therefore, respondents were in error in not considering his case. 5. We have gone through the writ record. 6. Perusal of the writ record would go on to show that the relief as claimed in the writ petition, as noticed was for consideration on the vacant posts of Bee Keeper strictly as per the merit and being meritorious, appointment from the date, as the candidates had been granted, vide Annexure P-7. 2025:HHC:30240 - 3 - 7. Perusal of Annexure P-7 would go on to show that final result of recruitment process was declared for the post of Bee Keeper, three General Candidates and one SC Candidate, on contract basis, in the Department of the Director of Horticulture, H.P. as per advertisement dated 08.04.2021. 8. In response to this advertisement, 1443 applications were received, out of which 286 applicants were provisionally admitted. Applicants were called for written, objective type screening test which was held on 09.12.2021. 71 candidates appeared and 215 candidates remained absent. Based on the merit of written, objective and Screening Test, 13 candidates were called for evaluation process on Government notified parameters. Resultantly, result was declared only of two candidates. Thus 2 posts [General (UR)-01 & SC (UR)-01] remained vacant due to non availability of candidates. 9. The stand of the State is crystal clear that the recommendations were made only for two candidates, by the Commission. The stand of the Commission is that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification from recognized ITI and his candidature had been rejected for want of essential qualification, in terms of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules and the Advertisement. It is a matter of 2025:HHC:30240 - 4 - record that in the Advertisement itself, the requisite qualification has been mentioned, which is in consonance with the R&P Rules. If that was so, the petitioner apparently had taken a chance even not having requisite qualification of the Diploma/Certificate in Mali Class or Horticulture Trade from the ITI. 10. It is in such circumstances, apparently there is no vested right for consideration to a candidate, not having eligibility/requisite qualification and he now cannot turn around and submit that the certificate issued by the University is an equivalent certificate. It is for the selection bodies, as such, to ensure eligibility and to recommend the candidates for appointment, as per the terms and conditions of the Advertisement and the Rules in question. The same has been strictly adhered to and the candidate with open eyes chose to apply for the said post, for which he was not having requisite qualification. He cannot as such, then approach the writ Court for consideration against the vacancies. The said exercise of seeing the eligibility had been done at the time of scrutiny of the documents, when it was found that he did not have the said educational qualification. 11. Accordingly, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge in declining the relief, under Article 226 2025:HHC:30240 - 5 - of the Constitution of India. 12. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Ranjan Sharma) Judge 3rd September, 2025 [himani/Bhardwaj]