IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1445 of 2025 Date of Decision: 1.12.2025 _____________________________________________________________________ Sajan ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner herein is aggrieved on account of his non- selection against the post of Junior T/mate. In nutshell, grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that while evaluating documents annexed with the application filed by the petitioner, for the selection to the post of Junior T/mate, respondents failed to grant him 0.5 marks for experience certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) Sub Division Jawali, wherein it has been certified that petitioner has worked as apprentice trainee under Electrical Sub Division HPSEBL Jawali from 25.4.2019 to 24.4.2020. 2. Having taken note of the aforesaid claim put forth at the behest of the petitioner, this Court passed detailed order on 18.11.2025, which reads as under: - 2 - “Though, in terms of order dated 08.10.2025, learned counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has produced the record with regard to selection of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the post of Helper/Junior Technician, but having regard to the nature of controversy, wherein petitioner has alleged that experience certificate submitted by him has not been taken into consideration, this Court finds it necessary to go through the record of application made by the petitioner for the post in question. Though, in reply, respondents have stated that petitioner has failed to produce the experience certificate from Government or Semi Government organization, but documents placed on record by the petitioner, which have been received under Right to Information Act, suggest that petitioner has submitted one certificate, issued by Assistant Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Jawali, wherein it has been certified that petitioner has worked as apprentice trainee under Electrical Sub Division HPSEBL Jawali from 25.04.2019 to 24.04.2020. If it is so, let respondents explain that why afore certificate was not taken into consideration, while considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post in question. In view of the above, let this matter be listed on 01.12.2025, on which date, record of the application submitted by the petitioner alongwith complete record be produced before this Court. 3. Pursuant to afore order, Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondents, has made available record, which has been brought by Mr. Kamlesh Thakur, Superintendent Grade –II, HPSEBL Kumar House, Shimla-4, o/o Executive Director (Pers.) Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd, Shimla-4, perusal whereof clearly reveals that though petitioner had submitted - 3 - experience certificate issued by the authority, as detailed herein above, but yet while evaluating the documents, respondents failed to award 0.5 marks to the petitioner, as a result thereof, petitioner was unable to find place in the final merit list. 4. Though, at the first instance, by way of filing reply, respondents claimed that no experience certificate was ever annexed by the petitioner with the application, however such fact was seriously refuted by the petitioner, who after having obtained information under RTI Act, placed on record certain documents i.e. copy of application complete in all respects, to demonstrate that he had annexed certificate issued by the competent authority. In the afore background, this court passed order dated 18.11.2025, thereby calling upon the respondents to explain the factual position. 5. Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel, after having carefully perused record and on the instructions of the department fairly admits the mistake committed by the respondent while evaluating the documents submitted by the petitioner alongwith the application for the post of Junior T/mate. He fairly states that in case petitioner is awarded 0.5 marks for experience certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Electrical, Sub Division Jawali, petitioner will be placed in the final merit list. 6. Though, now it is apparent from the facts narrated herein above that petitioner herein is entitled to be selected against the post - 4 - in question, but next question which arises for consideration is “whether last person selected against the post in question i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 can be thrown out or not?” 7. This court is of the view that since there was no fault, if any, of respondent No.4, who pursuant to his having applied for the post in question and on the basis of documents adduced on record was able to find place in the merit list, he cannot be thrown out of job at this juncture especially when he has been working against the post in question for four years, however at the same time, rightful claim of the petitioner also cannot be permitted to be defeated for the fault of the respondents, who while evaluating the documents were not careful enough, as a result thereof, an irregularity has occurred. 8. At this juncture it would be apt to take note of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled Vikas Pratap Singh and others Versus State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC 494, wherein taking note of the fact that the appellants (therein) had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than three years, were allowed to continue in service even though their selection was interfered with. Para 28 of the judgment, being relevant, is extracted hereinafter:- “28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security - 5 - of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.” 9. Similar situation arose in Anmol Kumar Tiwari and others Versus State of Jharkhand and others, (2021) 5 SCC 424, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court confirmed the decision of the High Court that had directed reinstatement of the writ petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were though beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner, but were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the said select list. Relevant para from the judgment reads as under:- “11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A - 6 - similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case, where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present.” 10. In the case at hand, respondent No.4 cannot be said to be at fault, rather it is the department, which has offered him appointment and as such, it would be too harsh if he is ordered to be removed from service. At the same time, petitioner also cannot be denied his rightful claim being fully eligible to be appointed against the post in question. 11. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds merit in the present petition and accordingly, same is allowed. Respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Junior T/mate considering him to be appointee of 2021, when respondent No.4 was given appointment but while doing so, appointment of respondent No.4 - 7 - shall not be withdrawn. However, petitioner shall not be entitled to actual monetary benefits for the period between deemed date of appointment and actual joining but such period shall count for the purpose of seniority and other service benefits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. December 1, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge