( 2025:HHC:20704 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 3362 of 2020. Date of decision : 1st July, 2025. Akshay Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation & Ors. ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Shivank Singh Panta, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Vaishali Lakhanpal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral) CMP-T No. 324 of 2025. Allowed. CWPOA No. 3362 OF 2020 2. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive reliefs:- “i) That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to give appointment to the applicant as Driver on contract basis in the respondent corporation from February, 2014 with all 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- ( 2025:HHC:20704 ) consequential benefits in the same manner in which the respondent corporation has given appointment to the private respondent, since the applicant and private respondent were earlier appointed as driver on contract basis for 67 days on 10.05.2013, but later on the private respondent was appointed on contract basis on the analogy of past experience in the respondent Corporation and applicant was deprived from the same and similar benefit without any justification. ii) That the respondent authorities may very kindly be directed to decide the representation of the applicant dated 14.07.2014 (Annexur eA-3) in light of the principle of parity in a time bound manner.” 3. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1-corporation invited applications for recruitment to 9 posts of drivers on contract basis in the year 2012. Petitioner applied for the post being eligible as per the advertisement. The selection process was held and petitioner was appointed as driver in the respondent-corporation vide office order dated 10.05.2013. 4. It is further the case of the petitioner that his services were not continued after 67 days of the appointment, rather the respondent-corporation issued a fresh advertisement dated 18.06.2013 for 9 posts of drivers on contract basis. 5. Petitioner has based his claim on the premise that once the petitioner was appointed as driver in pursuance to the selection process held as a sequel to the advertisement issued in 2012, -3- ( 2025:HHC:20704 ) without annulling the previous process, fresh process for recruitment of drivers could not have been initiated by the respondent- corporation. 6. Per contra, the respondent-corporation has contested the claim of the petitioner by contending that the selection process for the post of drivers in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2012 was not concluded for certain unavoidable reasons. It has been submitted that certain records relating to the selection process had gone missing and as such the selection process remained incomplete. 7. It is further submitted that the fresh selection process was initiated vide advertisement dated 18.06.2013. The petitioner participated in the said selection process without any reservation, however, he was not selected in the selection process. 8. As regards office order dated 10.05.2013, whereby the petitioner was engaged as a driver for 67 days, it has been explained that such an arrangement was made in the interregnum as the corporation was in dire need of drivers. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs as prayed by him in the instant petition for the reasons detailed hereafter. 10. Office order dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P-17) only records the sanction for engagement of petitioner as driver in the -4- ( 2025:HHC:20704 ) Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation, Transport Unit Manali for a period of 67 days on consolidated sum of Rs.8310/- per month. There was a specific stipulation that the engagement of the petitioner would automatically discontinue w.e.f. 16.07.2013. Petitioner had accepted the aforesaid engagement with wide open eyes. On his disengagement w.e.f. 16.07.2013, he had not raised any objections or challenge before any authority or forum. 11. On initiation of selection process for engagement of drivers in the respondent-corporation 2nd time i.e. on 18.06.2013, the petitioner was invited to participate in the interview to be held on 16.02.2014. In compliance thereto, the petitioner had participated and after having remained unsuccessful, filed the instant petition that too in the year 2017. 12. Evidently, the petitioner for the first time raised the grievance by way of representation dated 14.07.2014, when by way of a public notice issued by the respondent-corporation the names of successful candidates were notified. Noticeably, the representation of the petitioner was not decided, however, such fact loses relevance now when the matter is being decided on merits by considering the stand taken by the respondent-corporation in the reply filed to the instant petition. 13. Office order dated 10.05.2013 vide which the petitioner was engaged for 67 days as a driver also does not have any reference that the engagement of the petitioner was being made in pursuance -5- ( 2025:HHC:20704 ) to advertisement issued in the year 2012 or the selection process held in pursuance thereto. The respondents have placed on record a copy of office note dated 28.02.2013 prepared by the Managing Director of the respondent-corporation, which clearly reveals that the selection process for engagement of drivers in the respondent- corporation initiated in pursuance to advertisement of the year 2012 had not concluded for the reasons that certain records were missing. 14. In result, the petitioner cannot be said to have any right to claim appointment to the post of driver in the respondent- corporation. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed being devoid of any merits. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 1st July, 2025. Judge (jai)