( 2025:HHC:16618 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2921 with 2926 of 2020 Date of decision: 28th May, 2025 CWPOA No. 2921 of 2020 Mamta Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of HP & others …Respondents. CWPOA No. 2926 of 2020 Yogita Devi & another …..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others …..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Arvind Arora and Ms. Vidushi Sharma, Advocates in both petitions. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Ms.Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 3 in both petitions. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.4 in both petitions. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge These petitions, for involvement of similar question of fact and common question of law, are being decided together by this common judgment. 2 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 2 Petitioner Mamta Sharma (in CWPOA No. 2921 of 2020) by assailing selection process and selection made thereunder had filed OA No. 5038 of 2017 in Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal for quashing Selection List dated 18.07.2017 declared by respondent No.4 H.P. Public Service Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (History), Class-III, advertised vide Advertisement No. 10 of 2016 dated 27.07.2016 and communication dated 16.5.2017 whereby extension was given by the Government to complete the selection process on or before 31.7.2017 without dispensing with interview in terms of Notification dated 17th April, 2017, and also for direction to the respondents to set aside the appointment of selected candidates and to prepare the fresh merit/selection list in consonance with R&P Rules, 2010 read with Notifications dated 17th April, 2017 and 25th April, 2017. 3 Similarly, petitioners Yogita Devi and Monika Dogra (in CWPOA No. 2926 of 2020), by assailing selection process and selection made thereunder, had filed OA No. 5047 of 2017 in Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal for quashing selection list dated 27.07.2016 declared by respondent No.4 H.P. Public Service Commission (in short ‘the Commission’) for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (English), Class-III, advertised vide Advertisement No. 10 of 2016 dated 27.07.2016 and communication dated 16.5.2017 whereby extension was given by the Commission to 3 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) complete the selection process on or before 31st July, 2017 without dispensing with interview in terms of Notification dated 17th April, 2017, and also for direction to the respondents to set aside the appointment of selected candidates and to prepare the fresh merit/selection list in consonance with R&P Rules, 2019 read with Notifications dated 17th April, 2017 and 25th April, 2017. 4 On abolition of the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the aforesaid Original Applications bearing Nos. 5038 of 2017 and 5047 of 2017 were transferred to this High Court and were registered as present petitions i.e. CWPOA Nos. 2921 of 2020 and 2926 of 2020 respectively. 5 The facts in these cases are that respondents-State, for recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teachers, Class-III, Non- Gazetted in 14 subjects, had initiated the process of recruitment through H.P. Public Service Commission (respondent No.4). The Commission vide Advertisement No. 10 of 2016 dated 27th July, 2016 (Annexure A-1) had started the selection process for these posts. 6 Screening test for different posts was conducted on different dates. Screening test for Mathematics, Geography, Commerce, History and English was conducted on 3.12.2016, 3.12.2016. 11.12.2016, 10.12.2016 and 4.12.2016. The results of screening test were declared on 12.4.2017, 11.4.2017, 18.4.2017, 31.5.2017 and 24.5.2017 respectively. 4 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 7 On 17.4.2017, a Notification (Annexure A-6) was issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel for discontinuing/dispensing with the process of conducting interviews in respect of direct recruitment for making recommendations for Class- III and Class-IV posts/services under the State Government with immediate effect. With respect to already notified vacancies following conditions were notified:- “3. For already notified vacancies by the recruiting authorities prescribing personal interview, which have not been completed as yet, either the posts shall be re- advertised to the extent of dispensing with the personal interview and parameters as above may be adopted OR selection process shall be completed by 31.05.2017 by the respective recruiting authorities. In case(s) where advertisement for filling up of vacancies has been issued by the recruiting agencies but the written examination has not been held in such cases, the recruiting agencies will issue supplementary advertisement immediately clarifying that after written examination no interview will be held and the above parameters will be applicable for selection. 8 Thereafter, another Notification (Annexure A-7), dated 25.4.2017 was issued with further clarification, which reads as under:- “The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to order that under the Recruitment and Promotion Rules in respect of Class-III and IV posts/services under the State Government where presently a provision of interview exits, the interviews process will not imply viva-voce or evaluating the personality of the incumbent. The 5 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) selection to those Class-III and IV posts/services shall be made on the basis of merit of written examination or prescribed educational qualification followed by evaluation, by verifying the original documents/credentials only based on the parameters devised in the notification of even number dated 17.04.2017. 2. The Governor of Himachal Pradesh is further pleased to order that the concerned Department(s) will simultaneously initiate the process of carrying out amendment immediately in such Recruitment and Promotion Rules in respect of Class-III and IV posts/services in consonance with the provisions of notification dated 17.04.2017 prescribing the evaluation criteria based upon pre-defined parameters.” 9 In aforesaid circumstances, respondent/H.P. Public Service Commission vide communication No. 3-38/2016-PSC(R-I) dated 27.4.2017 had requested the Government of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, for extension of time upto 31.07.2017 for completing recruitment process for all notified Class-III posts/subjects. 10 In response to the aforesaid request, the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication No. Per(AP.B)B(15)-5/2014-Part dated 16.5.2017 had extended the time limit for completing process, upto 31.07.2017. The relevant communication reads as under:- “…..I am directed to refer to your letters No.3- 63/2015-PSC(E) dated 26.04.2017 and No. 3-38/2016- PSC(R-1) dated 27.04.2017 on the subject cited above 6 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) and to convey the approval of the Government for the grant of extension of time limit upto 31-07.2017 for Class-III posts/services and H.P. Subordinate Allied Services/posts (Class-II/III, Non-Gazetted) Examination- 2016 for completion of personal interview subject to the condition that the written, typing skill test and screening tests, as the case may be, have already been held and results have also been declared. Further, in respect to above posts/services, due consideration will be given to the parameters devised in this department notification of even number dated 17-04-2017 at the time of personal interview. 11 In aforesaid background, interviews to the posts of Post Graduate Teachers (English) were scheduled from 14.6.2017 to 30.6.2017 and interviews for Post Graduate Teacher (History) were scheduled on 3.7.2017 to 7.7.2017 and 10.7.2017 to 14.7.2017. 12 Petitioners participated in the interviews. The result of interview of Post Graduate Teachers (English) was declared on 7.7.2017, whereas result of Post Graduate Teacher (History) was declared on 18.7.2017 and recommendation/selection lista, on the basis of aforesaid process completed on 7.7.2017 and 18.7.2017, was made/sent by Commission to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on 20.7.2017. 13 Detail of marks obtained by candidates in the written test and interview was published by the Commission on 2/3rd August, 2017. The petitioners after collecting the documents, filed present petitions on 21.9.2017. 7 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 14 In response to petitions, it is the stand of Commission as well as State that 394 posts of Post Graduate Teachers, Class-III were advertised in 14 subjects and selection process with respect to some of subjects had been completed before 17.4.2017, whereas process to the post of Post Graduate Teachers, in the subjects Commerce, Geography, Mathematics, English and History, was pending completion at the time of issuance of Notifications dated 17.4.2017 and 25.4.2017, and because seniority of all Post Graduate Teachers, recruited in pursuance to one and the same advertisement, is to be determined on the basis of inter-se merit amongst them, declared by the Public Service Commission on the basis of selection process undertaken by Commission, therefore, it was required to complete the selection process with regard to all advertised posts of PGT Class-III in various subjects by adopting identical criteria for selection, and thus, the extension of time, as sought by the Commission, was necessary and therefore, respondents/State had rightly granted the extension of time to complete the process of selection process to the posts pertaining to remaining subjects including the Post Graduate Teachers (History and English) by extending the time upto 31.7.2017. 15 Referring the instruction/condition No.(i) published in Advertisement No. 10 of 2016 under the head of ‘Screening Test/Examination/Viva-voce Test’, it is further stand of respondents that petitioners were well aware about the process being undertaken by respondents through Commission for selection of posts which 8 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) included the screening test as well as viva-voce test/interview and therefore, petitioners were well aware that after screening test, interview was to be conducted, and in this background, after receiving the call letter to appear in interview petitioners appeared in interview(s) on the date fixed but without any objection or assailing the interviews proposed to be conducted by respondents-Commission in the months of June and July as the case may be. Therefore, it has been contended that petitioners took a chance to appear in the interview and waited for declaration of result and only for their non- selection became aggrieved from the process, adopted by respondents. It has been canvassed that in aforesaid situation, petitioners are not entitled to assail the process for participating therein to take chance of selection. 16 Above referred condition/term (i) of Advertisement reads as under:- “(i) In cases where the number of eligible candidates for recruitment to the post(s) advertised by the Commission is inordinately large, the Commission may limit/shortlist the number of eligible candidates to be called for interviews by subjecting them to a screening test (objective-type/descriptive) of two hours duration. Final selection of a candidate will be made solely on the basis of his/her performance in the viva-voce test/interview, which will be of maximum 100 marks. The minimum pass marks in interview are 45 for the candidates of general category and 35 marks for the candidates of reserved categories.” 9 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 17 It has been contended on behalf of petitioners that extension granted to respondent-Commission vide communication dated 16.5.2017 is illegal and deserves to be quashed for having been issued contrary to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as well as Notifications dated 17.4.2017 and 25.4.2017. It has been further contended that even if this extension is considered to be legal and valid, then also it was not applicable to the recruitment process for fulfilling the post of Post Graduate Teachers (Mathematic and History) for the reason that the extension communicated vide letter dated 16.5.2017 was subject to condition that written, typing skill test and screening test, as the case may be, had already been held and result had also been declared, with further rider that in respect to post and service regarding which extension was granted, due consideration was to be given at the time of personal interview to the parameters devised in the Notification dated 17.4.2017. 18 It has been canvassed that the extension was applicable to the cases where result of screening test had already been declared before 16.5.2017. Whereas, in case of Post Graduate Teachers (English and Mathematic) result was declared on 24.5.2017 and 31.5.2017 and therefore, this extension was not applicable to recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teachers (English) and Post Graduate Teachers (History). 19 It has been further contended that even if aforesaid aspect is ignored, then also the Commission had to give due 10 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) consideration in the interview, to the parameters contained in Notification dated 17.4.2017 which clearly and unambiguously provided that selection was to be made on the basis of merit of written examination or prescribed educational qualification followed by evaluation based on various parameters mentioned in Notification dated 17.4.2017 or otherwise the respondents had to re-advertise to the extent of dispensing with personal interview and adoption of parameters as contained in Notification dated 17.4.2017. 20 It has been further contended on behalf of petitioners that participation of petitioners in selection process cannot be made basis for rejection of their petitions because they were expecting that on the dates fixed for interview, parameters/criteria notified in Notifications dated 17.4.2017 and 25.4.2017 shall be followed but it was not followed and, therefore, petitioners are having right to assail the completely illegal selection process, even after completion of selection process. 21 As evident from the term/condition No.(i) published in Advertisement, referred supra, the respondents had clearly notified in the Advertisement that screening test will be followed by viva-voce test/interview of maximum 100 marks wherein minimum passed marks shall be 45 for the candidate of General Category and 35 for the candidate of Reserved Category, and final selection of candidate will be made solely on the basis of performance in the viva-voce test/interview. 11 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 22 Petitioners were participating in the aforesaid process. No doubt, Notifications dated 17.4.2017 and 25.4.2017 came to be notified during the pendency of selection process but petitioners were issued call letters for interview by the respondent-Commission after obtaining extension from the Government to complete the process by 31.7.2017. The petitioners, being aware of conditions and terms of Advertisement, did not bother to verify the facts from respondent- Commission, after receiving the interview/call letters, about criteria to be followed by respondent-Commission. Even if negligence on the part of petitioners is condoned at the stage of receiving the interview letters, by accepting their plea that they were expecting the adoption of criteria notified vide Notifications dated 17.4.2017 and 25.4.2017 by respondents at the time of interview, then also at the time of interview they became aware about process undertaken by Commission as the petitioners faced the interview and being educated persons, who are seeking appointment to a post of Post Graduate Teacher in the Education Department, it cannot be expected from petitioner to behave or understood the things/happenings like a rustic/ignorant person. It is unbelievable that even after facing the interview, they did not know or realize the process adopted by respondent-Commission at the time of interview. Despite having knowledge of terms and conditions published in Advertisement, no inquiry on receiving the interview call letters and participating in the interview without any objection and not raising objection even after 12 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) facing the interview but waiting for final result of process, is definitely sufficient to oust the petitioners from assailing the selection process for taking a chance with hope of selection but filing the petition for non-selection. 23 Even otherwise, the process initiated was to fill the posts of Post Graduate Teachers, Class-III in various subjects. In some of the subjects process was completed prior to 17.4.2017 whereas seniority of all candidates selected in furtherance to one and same process completed through one and same advertisement was to be determined by the Department on the basis of merit determined by Commission. In such eventuality, for selected candidates to the post of Post Graduate Teachers, though in different subjects but for the same post, it would have been discriminatory, illegal and irrational to select Post Graduate Teachers in two sets by adopting different criteria and to fix their seniority on the basis of merit determined by adopting different yardsticks. 24 The process to fill-up the post of Post Graduate Teachers initiated vide Advertisement No. 10 of 2016 was required to be completed by adopting uniform yardsticks. There are two options with the respondents. One to cancel the process including the selection list and recommendations already prepared and sent to the Government and in some cases, even after withdrawing the offer of appointment made to selected candidates in some subject OR second to complete the process of recruitment to all posts of Post Graduate Teachers for 13 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) all subjects advertised vide Advertisement No. 10 of 2016 after seeking extension from Government by adopting one and the same criteria. In our view, second option was reasonable and rational as first option would have caused a lot of inconvenience and hardship to already selected candidates some of which may have joined also. It would have also resulted multiplicity of litigation. 25 The condition imposed vide extension dated 16.5.2017, with respect to conducting the screening test and declaration of result prior to grant of extension, has to be read and applied in the light of advertisement of posts vide Advertisement No.10 of 2016 whereby the process to fill-up 394 posts of Post Graduate Teachers Class-III, Non-Gazetted was initiated. Screening tests in all subjects were held prior to 17.4.2017. In some of subjects, result was also declared. Result in all subjects except Post Graduate Teachers (English) and Post Graduate Teachers(History) was declared prior to 16.5.2017, whereas results of these two subjects were declared on 24.5.2017 and 31.5.2017. 26 Being the posts advertised together with posts of other subjects of Post Graduate Teachers, the selection process of Post Graduate Teachers(English) and Post Graduate Teachers(History) cannot be segregated from the entire selection process undertaken to fill the post of Post Graduate Teachers, Class-III, Non-Gazetted. It would not be rational, reasonable but would be arbitrary to make the 14 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) appointments in 12 subjects on the basis of one criteria but for the posts of Post Graduate Teachers of two subjects a different criteria. 27 Therefore, when not only result of screening test was declared prior to 16.5.2017 but interview to some of posts were also conducted or scheduled before issuance of Notification dated 17.4.2017 and 25.4.2017 as well as before the grant of extension on 16.5.2017, then the pre-condition of declaration of result has to be read and considered to have been fulfilled for exemption. 28 For above reasons, we are also of considered opinion that selection to be made on the basis of viva-voce/interview only cannot be reconciled with criteria of selection notified vide Notification dated 17.4.2107 whereby it has been provided that selection has to be made only on the basis of merit in written test or criteria of evaluation of candidature is prescribed in Notification dated 17.4.2017 which provides assessment/evaluation of candidature on the basis of educational qualification or certificates referred in said Notification. Therefore, plea of petitioners that pre-condition imposed for extension of time limit upto 31.7.2017 negates the claim of respondents that selection has been made by adopting valid process in terms of Advertisement read with Extension dated 16.5.2017 is misconceived. 29 To adjudicating the matter, it would also be relevant to refer the following paras of judgment of the Supreme Court passed in Anupal Singh and others vs. Sate of Uttar Pradesh through 15 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and others reported in(2020)2 SCC 173:- “55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. 56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:- “9. ….. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend 16 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. …..” 57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:- “73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper……..”. 58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:- “19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, …… It was further observed:- “34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ‘palatable’ to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.” 59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 17 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 619 wherein, it was held as under:- (SCC pp.645-46, para 59) “59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ……The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise.”…. ……. 61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors.” 18 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) 30 Though petitioners are disputing the correctness and legality of process adopted by respondents to make the selection on the basis of interview only, however, they have also claimed that marks in interview were given to them lesser than they deserve for their better performance. But here again, there is no specific allegation of bias or malafide against the Selection Committee or its members and none of the members of the Committee has been impleaded as party in person with specific averment of allegation of bias or malafide against such person. Therefore, bold allegations without any material or specific allegation cannot be made the basis to accept the plea of petitioners. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer following paras of judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr.G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow and others reported in (1976)3 SCC 585:- “15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the Committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not. now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the Committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant 19 ( 2025:HHC:16618 ) to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting:--- "It seems dear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point." 31 In view of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in the plea and contention of petitioner in both petitions. Accordingly, both petitions are dismissed in aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 28th May, 2025(ms) (Ranjan Sharma), Judge.