1 2025:HHC:34947 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 447 of 2024 Reserved on: 07.10.2025 Decided on: 15.10.2025 Surender Kumar ......Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2/ State. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for Ms. Nisha Nalot, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Karan Singh Parmar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The appellant who remained unsuccessful before the writ Court has laid challenge to the judgment dated 27.09.2024 passed in CWPOA No. 2983 of 2019, titled Surender Kumar vs. State of HP & Ors, mainly on the ground that the 4th respondent 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34947 had secured the judgment dated 31.12.2012, passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.10844 of 2012, by playing fraud. 2. The grouse of the appellant before this Court in the writ petition as well as in the appeal is that the 4th respondent gave wrong information about his being overage to take admission in B.Ed. Course in the regular stream prior to 2012-2013, when the University started B.Ed. Course in Commerce stream from 2007- 2008. It was alleged by the appellant that the 4th respondent was not overage when the H.P. University started the B.Ed. in commerce. 3. The 4th respondent when earlier filed the writ petition had contended that B.Ed. qualification for M.Com. candidates will not be essential till the expiry of three years from the date H.P. University allows B.Com./M.Com. candidates to undertake B.Ed. degree/course. It was submitted by him that since he has completed his degree of M.Com. in the year 2008 and the exemption given under the advertisement is of three years, he was eligible for the post of PGT(Commerce) and the H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board had wrongly rejected his candidature on the ground that he does not fulfill the essential qualification of B.Ed. Degree. 3 2025:HHC:34947 4. The Single Judge has noticed in the judgment that except for making bald allegations of fraud against the 4th respondent, no material was placed to substantiate the plea. 5. It was noticed in the judgment under challenge that the 4th respondent while filing reply to the writ petition had also appended copy of writ petition filed by him as Annexure R-4/A which was registered as CWP No. 10844 of 2012. In the said petition, the 4th respondent had not averred that he had become overage and for such reason, he could not undertake the B.Ed. Course before 2012-2013. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. The Single Judge has considered the issue in detail. It has been observed that the appellant instead of getting the order dated 31.12.2012 passed in CWP No. 10844 of 2012 reviewed, had instituted the petition with the allegation that the appointment of the 4th respondent was bad in law. Accordingly it was held that if the appellant was aggrieved by the earlier judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 10844 of 2012, the appropriate course available to him was to file a Review petition. The matter could not have been agitated by filing a separate Writ petition as was done by the appellant. 4 2025:HHC:34947 8. The perusal of the judgment under challenge clearly shows that the Single Judge has given categorical findings that except making bald allegations of fraud having been committed by the 4th respondent while securing the judgment dated 31.12.2012 passed in CWP No.10844 of 2012, no material has been placed on record to substantiate the said plea. Even while arguing the appeal, no material has been brought to the notice of the court that either the said findings are unsustainable or contrary to record. 9. After allowing the writ petition preferred by the 4th respondent, wherein direction was given by this court on 31.12.2012 to the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board to interview him subject to his merit, the competent authority after receipt of the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board had issued an office order on 02.07.2014, offering appointment to the 4th respondent, whose name figured at Serial No. 139 in Annexure P-5. Therefore, at this stage it would not be appropriate to quash the said office order, when the appellant has failed to prove that the earlier judgment passed by this Court has been obtained by the 4th respondent by playing fraud. 10. No other points have been urged. 11. Thus, we are of the considered view that the Single Judge has rightly returned the findings that the appellant has failed 5 2025:HHC:34947 to prove that the 4th respondent has played fraud and has secured the judgment dated 31.12.2012. Since there is neither any infirmity nor illegality in the judgment under challenge, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) (Jiya Lal Bhardwaj) Chief Justice Judge 15th October, 2025 (Anurag)