2025:HHC:13342 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.2332 of 2025 Decided on: 9th May, 2025 _________________________________________________________________ Gopal Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sikandar Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. C.N.Singh, Mr. Devender Sharma and Mr. Anshul Gandhi, Advocates, for the respondent No.5. Mr. R.L.Verma, Advocate, for respondents No. 6 and 7. Mr. Yash Pal Singh, Sr. Assistant, present alongwith record. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Respondent-Department of Fisheries on 26.12.2023 notified one vacancy of Junior Officer Assistant (IT) [in short JOA (IT)] to be filled on contract basis for the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2025:HHC:13342 - 2 - Persons with Disabilities (PwD). Last date for applying for the post was 10.02.2024. The notification also included the proforma/format on which applications were to be made for the post of JOA (IT). As per the prescribed format, certificates relating to educational qualifications, nature of disability, bonafide Himachali and experience, if any, were to be part of the application. On 24.1.2024, respondents-Department issued an addendum to the advertisement, giving weightage of marks. In all thirty marks were allocated under different heads. This petition concerns with the weightage of one mark to be given to the candidates belonging to landless families/family having land less than one hectare on the basis of the certificate issued by the concerned Revenue Authority. 2. Petitioner alongwith others applied under the aforesaid advertisement and qualified the Type Test Pursuant thereto, he alongwith other qualified candidates was called for verification of documents/counselling by the respondents under office letter dated 24.12.2024. The counselling/verification of documents was scheduled for 04.01.2025 and the petitioner accordingly appeared. 2025:HHC:13342 - 3 - Respondent- Department of Fisheries declared the result of selection process on 08.01.2025. One Sh. Rajat Kumar- Respondent No.7 was declared selected for the post of JOA (IT). Respondents No.5 and 6 having secured 14.56 & 14.45 marks respectively, were kept in the waiting list at Sr. Nos.1 and 2. Name of the petitioner appeared at Sr. No.3 of the waiting list with 14.43 marks. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was wrongly denied one mark for belonging to landless family/family having less than one hectare of land. On grant of this one mark, name of the petitioner would appear at the top of waiting list panel. Hence, petitioner instituted this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner belongs to a family whose landholding is less than one hectare. Certificate of landholding in this regard was issued to him by the Competent Authority on 05.03.2024, therefore, he is entitled for additional one mark in terms of Addendum dated 24.01.2024. Pursuant to the order passed in this writ petition, the respondent-Department has produced the record. According to the respondents, neither at the time of applying 2025:HHC:13342 - 4 - for the post in question nor at the time of verification of documents/ evaluation, petitioner had produced the certificate of his belonging to landless family/family with land less than one hectare, therefore, they cannot be faulted for not giving one additional mark to the petitioner, kept under this head in the Addendum dated 24.01.2024. This is the categoric stand of the respondent-Department in their reply as well. In the entire writ petition, there is no averment made on part of the petitioner that he ever supplied the certificate of his belonging to landless family/family having less than one hectare of land either at time of applying for the post or at the time of verification of documents/ interview/counselling. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder rebutting the factual assertions made by the respondent- Department in its reply. This being the admitted factual position, the respondent-Department can certainly be not faulted for not giving one mark to the petitioner kept for the candidates belonging to the landless family/family having land holding less than one hectare. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended 2025:HHC:13342 - 5 - that respondent No.5 had not annexed his income certificate with the application form, therefore, he was wrongly given one mark in lieu thereof. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 states that respondent No.5 has not been awarded any mark for his income certificate. The respondents alongwith their reply have placed on record merit list-cum-waiting panel. Name of respondent No.5 figures at Sr. No.2 thereof. In terms of merit list, respondent No.5 has been shown to have been given one mark for his non-employment certificate. This is in terms of Addendum dated 24.01.2024. Respondent No.5 has not been given any mark for his income certificate, as alleged by the petitioner. 5. In view of above, the contentions of the petitioner are misconceived and factually misdirected. There is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge May 9, 2025 R.Atal