IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2804/2022 Decided on: 08.09.2025 Santosh Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J Feeling aggrieved against not offering him appointment to the post of Takniki Sahayak by the respondents, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3(i) Vide notification at Annexure P-1 issued in compliance to a letter dated 18.02.2020 from the Director-cum-Special Secretary (Panchayati Raj), Himachal Pradesh, applications were invited for 05 posts of Tekniki Sahayak. Petitioner participated in the selection process. Result whereof was declared on 17.06.2021 (Annexure P-2). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 Petitioner name figured at Serial No.3 of the waiting list. Out of the five selected candidates, Ms. Anjali Rana at Serial No.4 did not join the post. Her post was accordingly offered to Ms. Ekta Devi, whose name appeared at Serial No.1 of the waiting list. 3(ii) As per the reply filed by respondent No.3, Ms. Ekta Devi had reported for duty. 3(iii) Petitioner’s contention is that the person selected at Serial No.2 i.e. Mr. Vikrant had resigned and this vacancy was sought to be filled by the respondents from Mr. Ajay Kumar, whose name appeared at Serial No.2 of the waiting list. Mr. Ajay Kumar, declined to accept this offer/job, therefore, the vacancy should have been filled up by offering the same to the petitioner, who stood third in the waiting list. 4. Consideration Respondents in their reply have refuted petitioner’s contention on facts. According to the respondents, the vacancy on account of resignation by Mr. Vikrant had never been offered to Mr. Ajay Kumar. No appointment letter was issued to Mr. Ajay Kumar. Office letter dated 17.01.2022 (Annexure R-3/1) in this regard from concerned Block Development Officer, Development Block Lambagaon, District Kangra, has been appended. Even otherwise, if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which cannot be been filled up without issuing a 3 proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. {Reference: Sudesh Kumar Goyal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2023) 10 SCC 54] In view of above, petitioner’s claim of issuing him appointment letter on account of vacancy created on account of resignation of one of the selected candidates i.e. Mr. Vikrant, sans merit. Accordingly, the present petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 08th September, 2025(rohit)