2025:HHC:44245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWPOA No.3833 of 2020 Decided on: 11.12.2025 _________________________________________________________ Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ...Respondents & Others Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting?. No. For the petitioner: Mr. Sat Parkash, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2-State. None for respondent No.3. Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ranjan Sharma, Judge [Oral] Petitioner, Sanjeev Kumar, initially filed an Original Application No.98 of 2018; which upon establishment of Learned State Administrative Tribunal was transferred to the Tribunal; and upon abolition, the matter stands transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No.3833 of 2020, praying for the following relief(s): “(i). That appropriate orders or directions may very kindly be passed for giving joining to applicant on the post of Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:44245 - 2 - ii). That appropriate orders or directions may very kindly be passed for quashing and setting aside recruitment notice i.e. annexure A-6 qua post of Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker. iii). That appropriate orders or directions may very kindly be passed for quashing and setting aside services of respondent No.4 because he has been appointed in place of applicant ignoring guidelines issued for giving appointment on the post of Water Guard. iv). That in alternative relief respondents may very kindly be directed to re-initiate and conduct entire recruitment process for the post of Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case set-up by Learned Counsel is that the petitioner is matriculate and physical disabled and belongs to Integrated Rural Development Programme [IRDP] and Scheduled Caste [SC] category as per Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-4. It is averred that in the year, 2014 the respondents commenced the selection process for post of Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour, but this process cancelled and thereafter, fresh selection process was undertaken in the year 2017 as per the 2025:HHC:44245 - 3 - guidelines issued by the Government [Annexure A-6], leading to the selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 [Parveen Kumar] as Water Guard in concerned Panchayat. Pursuant to selection, the private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar] joined as Water Guard and other candidates, including the petitioner remained unsuccessful. STATE OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on 12.01.2018, by State Administrative Tribunal, the official Respondents have filed the Reply-Affidavit on 23.06.2018. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that the selection for the post of Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour was undertaken by the respondents in consonance with the guidelines [Annexure A-6]. Reply-Affidavit states that selection of private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar] was made on the basis of merit determined as per parameters of selection by a duly constituted Selection Committee comprising of Assistant Engineer and other members. Reply-Affidavit indicates that though the initial selection 2025:HHC:44245 - 4 - process was initiated during 2014, but the said selection process was cancelled due to administrative reasons, as per Annexure R-I, on 15.01.2014. 3(ii). Reply-Affidavit further indicates that fresh selection was initiated by issuing Advertisement on 15.09.2017 and in response to this, interviews were held on 29.09.2017, in which 16 candidates including the petitioner and the private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar] participated. Pursuant to the selection process, private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar] who had higher overall merit, in terms of the prescribed parameters for interview-evaluation as per Annexure R-II. Pursuant to the interviews held on 29.09.2017, the result was declared by Selection Committee as per Annexure R-III. Perusal of the Result-Sheet [Annexure R-III] indicates that private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar], secured 71 marks, whereas, the petitioner secured 50.5 marks. In this backdrop, the non-selection of the petitioner was approved by the Selection Committee. 4. Heard, Mr. Sat Parkash, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Shashi Kiran, Learned 2025:HHC:44245 - 5 - Counsel representing respective respondents. ANALYSIS: 5. Upon hearing Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusing the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the non-selection of the petitioner as Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour does not suffer from any infirmity for the following reasons:- 5(i). The selection process was carried out by the duly constituted Selection Committee based on the interview on 29.09.2017 [Annexure R-III] in accordance with the criteria prescribed by the Government on 17.04.2017 [Annexure R-II]. Even a perusal of the Result- Sheet [Annexure R-III] indicates that 16 candidates appeared for the post of Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour. Out of 16 candidates, the private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar] scored highest 71 marks and he was recommended and appointed and he is working under the respondents. On the other hand, the petitioner [Sanjeev Kumar] had scored 50.5 marks only. 5(ii). Perusal of Result-Sheet [Annexure-III] reveals 2025:HHC:44245 - 6 - that 16 candidates participated in Selection-Interview held on 29.09.2017 in which the petitioner ranked at serial No.14 in the overall merit list [marks-wise] and the private respondent topped the merit. 5(iii). The petitioner has not pointed out violation or infraction of any norms or guidelines governing selection [evaluation or interview]. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the Selection Committe had acted in a malafide or biased manner. Mere bald allegation shall not entitle the petitioner for any relief. The selection made by duly constituted Selection Committee cannot be interfered with on the basis of mere allegations and more so, when there is not cogent and convincing material to assert and establish any illegality or infraction of established guidelines or any bias or arbitrariness in selection. In this backdrop, this Court cannot accede to the prayer of the petitioner. The selection of private respondent No.4 [Praveen Kumar] on the basis of higher overall merit, as per the parameters of selection made by a duly constituted selection committee does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. 2025:HHC:44245 - 7 - DIRECTIONS: 6. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed in the following terms: (i). Selection of Respondent No.4-Praveen Kumar, as Water Guard in Gram Panchayat Mehlog Laltikker, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmour is upheld; (ii). Non-selection of the petitioner as Water Guard, due to overall merit at serial No.14, out of total 16 candidates, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. (iii). Parties to bear respective costs. In the aforesaid terms, the instant petition is disposed of as well as pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge December 11, 2025 [Shivender]