2025:HHC:23003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.  5038 of 2019 Reserved on 28.6.2025 Decided on : 16.7.2025 Amit Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. &others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner  : Mr.   K.B.   Khajuria   and   Mr. Pushpender Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents  : Mr.   Hemant   K.   Verma,   DAG,   for respondent No.1. MR. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge : The   instant   petition   has   been   filed   for   the following reliefs:­ “i) That   this   original   application   may   kindly   be allowed   and   respondent   No.2   may   kindly   be directed to redraw the merit list after inviting fresh options   from   the   candidates   and   select   and 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ­2­ offer/appointment to the applicant as ARCS with all consequential benefits. ii) That respondents No. 1 and 2 further may kindly be   directed  to   give   the  seniority  of   ARCS  to   the applicant   from   the   date   when   the   private respondent was appointed as ARCS.” 2. The   Himachal   Pradesh   Public   Service Commission  vide  advertisement   dated   5.1.2013   invited applications   for   participation   in   H.P.   Administrative Combined   Competitive   Examination­2012   (for   short, ‘Combined   Examination   2012’)   for   Himachal   Pradesh Administrative   Services   (Class­I)   Gazetted   and   Himachal Pradesh Police Services (Class­I) Gazetted posts. 3. Petitioner applied in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement and also participated in the examination/selection   process. He   was   declared successful. 4. The case of the petitioner is that on 18.8.2014, he was asked to fill an option form for the posts to be filled in   pursuance   to   the   Combined   Examination   2012. Petitioner filled the post of Treasury Officer as 4th  option ­3­ and the post of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies as 5th option. 5. Petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Treasury Officer vide letter dated 1.12.2014 and in the said letter, the post of Treasury Officer was shown as Class­II Gazetted. 6. The   petitioner   has   raised   a  grievance   that   he was taken aback, when he came to know that the post on which he was selected was Class­II Gazetted, whereas, the candidate, who was lower in merit i.e. private respondent No.3   was   appointed   as   Assistant   Registrar   Cooperative Societies, which was a Class­I Gazetted post. According to the petitioner, the misrepresentation was caused by the wrong   information  in  the   option  form  wherein  both the posts   i.e.   Treasury   Officer   and   Assistant   Registrar Cooperative   Societies   were   shown   as   Class­I   Gazetted posts. Petitioner has further submitted that in case he was made aware about the correct position, he would never have opted for a Class­II Gazetted post instead of Class­I Gazetted post. ­4­ 7. The respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. Though, the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, by way of its reply has admitted that in the option form, the post of Treasury Officer had been shown as   Class­I   Gazetted   post   instead   of   Class­II   by inadvertence, yet the contention of the petitioner is alleged to be an afterthought. It  has been  submitted that the Commission   had   issued   an   addendum   to   the Advertisement   No.   V/2012   on   27.6.2013,   whereby   the posts   of   Treasury   Officer   and   Assistant   Registrar Cooperative   Societies   were   clearly   classified   as   Class­II Gazetted posts. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed his arguments on the basis of plea raised by him in the petition. He contended that the petitioner was not at fault and for such reason his career cannot be put at stake. He further submitted that the petitioner had represented to ­5­ the   Principal   Secretary,   Finance   against   the   injustice caused to him but nothing was heard. 10. Having considered the entire material on record as also the submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be held entitled to the relief as prayed in the petition keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. My reasons are as under. 11. The advertisement dated 5.1.2013 reveals that the   applications   were   invited   for   Himachal   Pradesh Administrative   Combined   Competitive   Examination   2012 for   nine   vacancies   of   Himachal   Pradesh   Administrative Services (Class­I) Gazetted and four vacancies of Himachal Pradesh Police Services (Class­I) Gazetted posts. At that juncture, the advertisement did not include any vacancies to   the   post   of   either   Assistant   Registrar   Cooperative Societies or Treasury Officer. It was by way of addendum issued by respondent No.2 Commission on 27.6.2013 that two posts of Tehsildars, six posts of Treasury Officers and four posts of Assistant Registrar Cooperative Societies were ­6­ added. Thus, by issuance of addendum, the above posts became   part   of   the   original   Advertisement   No.   V/2012 dated 5.1.2013. 12. To   the   specific   averments   made   by   the Commission with respect to issuance of addendum dated 27.6.2013, no response has been given by the petitioner. The   petitioner  cannot  be  said  to  be  ignorant  about the contents of addendum dated 27.6.2013 in which the post of Treasury Officer was clearly cited as Class­II Gazetted post. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot possibly show his ignorance to the contents of the aforesaid addendum because the post of Treasury Officer was not advertised by way of initial advertisement. If the petitioner had been unaware of inclusion of the post of Treasury Officer, he should have been taken by surprise at the time of filling of option   form,   wherein   he   had   found   mention   of   various other   posts,   which   were   not   part   of   the   initial advertisement. 13. Thus,   when   the   post   of   Treasury   Officer   had been   shown   as   Class­II   post   in   the   advertisement/ ­7­ addendum, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to allege that there was a misrepresentation of information in the option form and he had fallen into errors, as alleged. 14. Assumingly, the petitioner was not aware about the addendum, even then, he having applied for combined competitive examination, would have taken care to know about the status of posts, which were going to be filled. 15. Viewed from another angle, the petitioner should have prudently sought clarification before filling the option form on account of discrepancy regarding mentioning of class of posts in the addendum as also the option form. 16. In light of above discussions, the petition has no merit   and   the   same   is   accordingly   dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 16th July, 2025 Judge (kck)