( 2025:HHC:20532 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2386/2025 Decided on: 30.06.2025 Kamal Kishore …Petitioner Versus UOI & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virbahadur Verma, Central Government Counsel. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Respondent No.1 issued an advertisement on 10.08.2022 for filling up the posts of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Force. The petitioner participated in the selection process. The selection process was completed and final result thereof was declared on 16.08.2023. Petitioner’s result was withheld. On 05.01.2024, respondent No.1 informed the petitioner the reason for withholding his result, the reason being his thumb 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:20532 impression did not match with his specimen thumb impression. Respondents directed the petitioner to appear before the Constituted Board for re-collecting his handwriting & fingerprints samples. Petitioner complied with the directions. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory submitted its report in petitioner’s favour in May 2024. Even then the respondents did not declare petitioner’s result. Petitioner’s grievance is that he represented several times to the respondents for doing the needful in the matter and for declaring his result, but no concrete action on his representations was taken by the respondents. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred this writ petition on 15.02.2025 seeking following substantive reliefs: - “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus calling for the final report from the respondents and directing respondent No.1 to 4 to complete the process in a time bound manner; and/or (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner from due date with all consequential benefits; and/or.” 2. Orders passed in this matter: 2(i) Notice in this petition was issued on 18.02.2025. On the next date of listing i.e. 27.03.2025, noticing that the respondents had still not filed the reply, following order was passed in the matter: - “Respondents have still not filed reply. Learned counsel for the respondents seeks further two weeks’ time to file reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads urgency of the subject 3 ( 2025:HHC:20532 matter as the issue involves withholding of the result of the petitioner for the selection process in question. Let reply be positively filed within two weeks. List on 22.04.2025.” 2(ii) The matter was next taken up on 22.04.2025, when learned Central Government Counsel apprised that the codal formalities had been completed by the respondents. Petitioner’s thumb impression matched with that of his specimen thumb impression and his case had been forwarded to the DIG (Recruitment) Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi (Nodal Force) for clearance of his result by Staff Selection Commission and also for issuing of offer of appointment to him. The order passed on 22.04.2025 reads as under: - “Learned Central Government Counsel submits that affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1, 2 & 4 in the Registry of this Court on 19.04.2025, however, the same is not on record in the Court file. 2. Learned Central Government Counsel, however, has made available a photocopy of the same. As per this affidavit, case of the petitioner has now been forwarded to DIG (Recruitment) Directorate, BSF, New Delhi (Nodal Force) duly recommended for clearance of his result by Staff Selection Commission and issue of offer of appointment vide DIG (Recruitment) Directorate, CRPF, New Delhi letter dated 08.04.2025; Further process of appointment is being processed by the DIG (Recruitment) Directorate General BSF and Staff Selection Committee. As per the affidavit, the matter is under active consideration of the respondents for taking a final decision. 3. Instant case pertains to declaration of result of the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central 4 ( 2025:HHC:20532 Reserve Police Force examination 2022, which was though declared in August, 2023 but the result of the petitioner had been withheld on account of mis-match of his left hand thumb impression. As per supplementary affidavit, now the name of the petitioner has been recommended for clearance of his result. 4. Respondents have not taken further required action. Considering the matter pertains to selection and appointment against a post, let the respondents to take final call in the matter and apprise with the decision on the next date. List on 13th May, 2025.” 2(iii) On 13.05.2025, Mr. Virbahadur Verma, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents placed on record office communication dated 13.05.2025 from the Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, in terms of which, revised result of the petitioner was declared and his name was recommended for appointment as Sub Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force. The order passed in the petition on 13.05.2025 is as follows: - “Pursuant to the order dated 22.04.2025, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents has placed on record office communication dated 13.05.2025 from the Staff Selection Commission, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India (respondent No.3). In terms of office communication, respondents have now declared the revised result of the petitioner and he is being recommended for appointment as Sub Inspector in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Learned vice counsel for the petitioner states that appointment order has not yet been issued to the petitioner. That the petitioner is to be given appointment from the due date i.e. 5 ( 2025:HHC:20532 when the others selected under the same selection process as the petitioner were appointed. Learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents seeks two weeks further time to do the needful. As prayed for, list on 29.05.2025.” 2(iv) On the next date of listing of the case i.e. 29.05.2025, petitioner’s appointment order dated 26.05.2025 was placed on record. 3. The surviving grievance of the petitioner concerns the ‘date’ from which he is to be appointed to the post in question in the given facts and circumstances. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had declared the result of all others candidates, who had participated in the same selection process on 16.08.2023, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner’s result was declared by the respondents pursuant to the orders passed in this writ petition and consequently, he was appointed on 26.05.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that in situation like this, petitioner is required to be given notional appointment from the date on which others, who participated in the same selection process were appointed. 4. Heard. Admittedly, the action of the respondents in deferring declaration of petitioner’s result was not due to any fault of the petitioner. It is also matter of record that the petitioner had been pursuing with the respondents diligently and had been taking all 6 ( 2025:HHC:20532 possible steps at his end. Requisite actions were to be carried out by the respondents. Since the respondents had delayed in taking concrete action on petitioner’s representations, he was compelled to institute this writ petition. It is during the pendency of this writ petition and the orders passed herein, that the respondents declared the result of the petitioner and offered him appointment on 26.05.2025. The petitioner thereafter completed all the codal formalities & joined on 23.06.2025. In the attending circumstances, there is merit in petitioner’s claim for his deemed/notional appointment from due date i.e. when all others, who participated in the same selection process were appointed. 5. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with direction to the respondents to assign deemed/notional date of appointment to the petitioner from the date, the appointment was given to the others, who were selected & appointed in the same selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.08.2022 (Annexure P-1) and whose results were declared on 16.08.2023. The petitioner shall also be entitled to deemed seniority and pay fixation from his notional date of appointment. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 30th June, 2025(rohit)