1 2025:HHC:34321 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.15518 of 2025 Decided on: 26.09.2025 Paritosh Sharma ..Petitioner Versus High Court of H.P. & Ors ..Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Rathor, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Partap Singh, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the advertisement dated 10.04.2025 issued for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in H.P Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges/Additional District Judges. The second prayer is to quash the recruitment process on the ground that General (UR) category was allowed to participate therein. The final merit list as 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34321 ) such dated 05.09.2025 (Annexure P-25) is also sought to be quashed, whereby the private respondent No.3 as such made the grade in the order of the merit as a General Category on the ground that the ST Category as such did not qualify the examination. It is pertinent to mention that the other candidate who qualified against the two posts, which were advertised belongs to the other backward classes and, therefore, his selection is not a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The further direction sought is that the reserved post of ST be carried forward to the next recruitment process in accordance with law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought our attention to the advertisement initially to submit that the applications were invited from the reserved (UR) category and OBC category and only at the bottom of the advertisement as such, there is a mention of the General Category with upper cut of age of 45 years in contrast to the 48 years of the reserved category. Similarly, in the last portion of the advertisement, it has been mentioned that if the suitable candidates from the reserved category are not available, then the vacancies will be treated as 3 2025:HHC:34321 ) unreserved and shall be filled up as per the proviso under Rule 5 of the H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2004. 3. It is submitted that the representation made on 26.07.2022 by the petitioner was rejected by the Registry of this Court by a non-speaking order, which was communicated to him vide letter dated 02.09.2025 (Annexure P-23) that his representation has been considered and rejected. Though learned counsel has tried to point out that the said order is non-speaking but the fact remains that there is no challenge raised to the said order. The reference has been made to go back to the recruitment process on 19.11.2018 (Annexure P-6) to show that on the earlier occasion General Category has not been allowed to participate. It is thus the argument of the learned Counsel that only ten applications of general category were received against the advertisement dated 10.04.2025 and, therefore, the advertisement is not clear in some sum and substance. The General Category candidates have not been given chance to apply against the said advertisement leading to their prejudice and, therefore, the scope as such of the recruitment had been limited and only two candidates as such were invited for the viva-voce on 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-21). 4 2025:HHC:34321 ) 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. 5. First of all, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the process. Apparently, he was never an applicant though he claims to be a practicing Advocate in this Court since 2012. The manner in which the selection has been sought to be derailed is something, which has come to our notice. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.04.2025, the examination was held on 30.06.2025. Representation dated 26.07.2025 (P-22) was drafted and only filed on 26.08.2025, when the merit list was drawn after the examination on 30.06.2025 had taken place and the result was declared on 06.08.2025. The representation submitted on 26.07.2025 was rejected on 02.09.2025. It is also a matter of record that from 10.04.2025, various processes had to be adhered to after the issuance of the advertisement. The list of eligible candidates was displayed on the public domain; List of the candidates having certain deficiencies/discrepancies in their applications was also put on the public domain (Annexure P-18). Similarly, one candidate, who was not found eligible being over age, her name was also put on 5 2025:HHC:34321 ) the public domain (Annexure P-20). Only when the three persons cleared the written examination and got the minimum marks and were called for interview on 6.8.2025 (P-21), the said representation was effectively filed by the petitioner on 26.8.2025 though he is a practicing Advocate of this Court. When the office note was put up, this fact was specifically mentioned before the Competent Authority. It is also to be noted that alongwith the petitioner, there were as many as six other representations, which were received including from the Shimla Bar Association after the cut of date, i.e., 30.04.2025, against the advertisement, which also mentioned the date of examination on 30.6.2025. No attempt was made to give the representation prior to the examination and only after the declaration of the result, the steps have been taken which goes on to show the ill intention behind the present litigation. 6. It is in such circumstances, the said representation of the petitioner was rejected as noticed on 02.09.2025 while noting the specific mention in the advertisement. The advertisement in question reads as under:- 6 2025:HHC:34321 ) “HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA No. HHC/GAZ/14-48/74-XIV- Dated Shimla the 10th April, 2025 Website: http://hphighcourt.nic.in NOTICE Applications on the prescribed format are invited from eligible candidates le members of the Bar (Advocates) belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category and OBC Category for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges in H.P. Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges/Additional District Judges in the pay matrix of Rs. 14-4840-194660 for the following vacancies: a) Existing vacancies: 2 (One each for Schedule Tribe and OBC Categories) b) Vacancies that may arise within one year due to retirement; Last date for receipt of applications: 30.04.2025 Date of Written Examination 30.06.2025 The candidates must have attained the age of 35 years and not have attained the age of 45 years in the case of General Category candidates and 48 years in the case of candidates belonging to Schedule Castes/Schedule Tribes and other Backward Classes on the last date of receipt of the applications. All the important criteria regarding age, educational qualification, experience and character should be supported by attaching copies thereof. Intending candidates may visit the High Court Website for collecting relevant information with regard to eligibility criteria, Format of application, time schedule, all matters connected therewith including application fee etc, Rules and Regulations, and all the relevant terms and conditions connected with the Selection Process. In case suitable candidates from category of Schedule Tribe and OBC is not available then the vacancies will be treated an unreserved and filled in as un-reserved vacancy as per proviso added below table under Rule-5 of the H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2004. (emphasis supplied) By Order of the Hon'ble High Court Sd/- 10.4.2025 (Bhupesh Sharma). Registrar General” 7. On the reading of the advertisement, it would be clear that in its last paragraph, it is very specifically 7 2025:HHC:34321 ) mentioned that in case suitable candidates from the category of SC and OBC is not available, then the vacancies will be treated as unreserved and to be filled up accordingly as per the proviso of the relevant rule. Similarly, in the earlier portion of the advertisement, it is specifically mentioned that upper age limit of the general category candidates will be 45 years and 48 years in the case of reserved categories. If the applications were not to be invited from the General Category, these two factors would have not been mentioned. The petitioner having not applied now cannot turn around and submit that his representation dated 26.07.2025 though filed on 26.08.2025 after the three candidates were called for the interview thus smacks of patent mala fides. The words of the last paragraph of the advertisement depicting the conversion procedure as such have been taken from the rule in question. The relevant proviso reads as under:- “Provided further that a time cap of three recruitment years shall apply for filing up of backlog /carry forward vacancy against reserved roster point for Schedule Castes /Schedule Tribes / Other Backward Classes and while doing so in the 3rd recruitment year to fill up a particular carry forward/backlog vacancy, it shall be notified that in case suitable candidate from the category to which the post is reserved is not available then the vacancy will be treated as unreserved and filled in as unreserved vacancy.” 8 2025:HHC:34321 ) 8. Wording of the advertisement in question thus would go on to show that it is verbatim repeat of the proviso/rule that in case the reserved candidate is not available, then the general category candidate will be liable to be considered against the said vacancy. 9. It is to be noticed that on the earlier occasion when on 19.11.2018, the applications were invited for the said posts from the reserved category candidates, it was specifically mentioned in the last paragraph to the same extent. The said advertisement reads as under:- “ ANNEXURE P-6 HIGH.COURT.OF HIMACHAL PRADESH “REVENSWOOD: SHIMLA No.HHC/GAZ/14-48/74-XII- Dated Shimla the 19 November, 2018 Website: http:/hphighcourt.nic.in NOTICE Applications on the prescribed format are invited from eligible candidates, i.e., members of the Bar (Advocates) belonging to Scheduled Tribe Category, Scheduled Caste Category and OBC Category for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges in H.P Judicial Service in the care of District Judges/Additional District Judges in the pay scale of Rs. 51550-63070 for the following vacancies: a) Existing vacancies: 3(One each for Schedule Tribe, Schedule Caste and OBC categories) b) Vacancies that may arise …. within one year due to retirement c) future vacancies that may arise ….. due to deputation of Judicial officer to other departments, which will be considered as temporary vacancies 9 2025:HHC:34321 ) d) Vacancies arising due to …. deputation of judicial officers to other department may be considered as temporary vacancy Last date for receipt of applications: 10.12.2018 Date of Written Examination: 07.03.2019 The candidates must have attained the age of 35 years and not have attained the age of 45 years on the last date of receipt of the application. All the important criteria regarding age, educational qualification, experience and character should be supported by attaching copies thereof. Intending candidates may visit the High Court Website for collecting relevant information with regard to eligibility criteria, Format of application, time schedule, all matters connected therewith including application fee etc. Rules and Regulations, and all the relevant terms and conditions connected with the Selection Process. In case suitable candidates from category of Schedule Caste is not available then the vacancy will be treated as un-reserved and filled in as un-reserved vacancy as per proviso added below table under Rule-5 of the H.P. Judicial Service Rules, 2004. By Order of the Hon'ble High Court Sd/- (J.K. Sharma) Registrar (Judicial)” 10 In fact, if it is to be seen that there is an improvement from the last advertisement to the advertisement of 2025, since in the second paragraph, a specific mention is made about the upper age limit of the General category candidates which mention was not there in the advertisement of 2018. It is also to be noticed that resort as such has been taken on account of the 10 2025:HHC:34321 ) non-filling of the said posts and for conversion to the General Category on account of the candidates not being available for the last three years. The petitioner himself has placed on record vacancy position as on 15.11.2022 (P-11), which has noticed regarding the existing vacancies under which category. It was in pursuance to the said notice whereby three posts were filled up, i.e., one for ST, one for OBC and one for unreserved by way of advertisement dated 20.11.2022 (P-12). It is thus the practice in this Court that before the advertisement, specific notice is put up showing the extent of vacancies, which have to be filled up before the advertisement is issued. Thus the public being well aware and having due knowledge of the vacancies and the petitioner having not applied, now cannot turn around at this belated stage, to challenge the selection process, which has culminated after written examination and a successful viva-voce of the private respondent. 11. Needless to say that though the rejection order was communicated on 02.09.2025 though which is sought to be mentioned as non speaking order, was duly passed by the competent authority and we have looked at the noting portion provided by the office whereby all the 11 2025:HHC:34321 ) facts were put before the competent authority, also noting the delay in filing of the representation and the fact that the two candidates had qualified for the General Category and none have qualified from the category of scheduled tribes and accordingly, they were duly considered against the same, in pursuance of the statutory rules and the advertisement. 12. Another argument raised is that in the year 2018, in similar circumstances, one candidate, namely, Sanjay Kumar Chaubey, belonging to the unreserved category had been found not eligible on the same ground and had not been allowed to sit in the examination since the post advertised was for the reserved category as per the advertisement dated 19.10.2018. Reference is made to Annexure P-10 to this extent. The said argument is also misplaced as apparently the said document would go on to show that apparently for different considerations, the said candidate had been rendered ineligible as he hailed from another State. The remarks as such in the said column would go on to show that apparently for not belonging from the State of Himachal Pradesh, his candidature was not considered and had been rejected by the then duly constituted Committee 12 2025:HHC:34321 ) and put in public domain as he did not have the requisite domicile certificate. Therefore, the said argument as such that on earlier occasion, this Court had acted differently, would not be of any basis, once the advertisement is crystal clear that in case of non-availability of candidates from the reserved categories, the vacancies were to be treated as unreserved and filled up. 13 In such circumstances, we do not wish to prejudice the selection process, which has taken its due course over the last six months, at the behest of the candidate, who himself has not been vigilant enough, even though practicing in this High Court. 14 Resultantly, we refrain from imposing any costs as such and dismiss the present petition in limini. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice September 26, 2025 (Bipin Chander Negi) (mamta) Judge