2025:HHC:2118-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2215 of 2022 Decided on: 09.01.2025 Surender Kumar & another … Petitioners Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioners : Mr. Vishwa Bhushan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondents-HPSEBL. Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3-SSC. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the act of the respondent No. 3, in carrying on the process of recruitment for the posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical)(on contract basis) Post Code 829, may kindly be declared unreasonable, unconstitutional, unjustified, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of advertisement No. 36-3/2020 dated 21-9-2020 (Annexure-P/1) and settled principles of justice. (ii) That the result of written objective test dated 17- 11- 2021 (Annexure-P/6), Corrigendum dated 4-3-2022 (Annexure-P/7), revised result dated 11-3-2022 (Annexure- P/8) and final result dated 29- 3-2022 (Annexure-P/9) for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical) (on contract basis) Post Code:829 based on Advertisement No. 36-3/2020 (Annexure-P/1) may kindly be quashed. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:2118-DB (iii) That the respondents may further be directed to start the recruitment process for the above mentioned posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) (on contract basis) Post Code: 829 afresh strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rules in a transparent manner.” 2. The case of the petitioners is that Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, vide Annexure P-1, dated 21.09.2020, invited applications to fill up various posts including 156 posts of Junior Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Dharamshala. This included 28 posts for the category of Scheduled Caste (Un- reserved). In terms of the advertisement, i.e. Note-VI thereof, number of posts were stated to be tentative which could increase of decrease from time to time for different categories of posts, provided fresh requisitions were received from any Requisitioning Authorities for the posts having common/similar Recruitment & Promotion Rules upto 31.12.2020 or the date of written objective screening test. 3. According to the petitioners they being eligible to participate in the process, did so, for the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category. The grievance of the petitioners is that when the result of the written objective type screening test was declared on 17.11.2021, again the posts of Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category were reflected as 28, but thereafter, arbitrarily when the final results were declared vide Annexure P-9, Notification dated 29.03.2022, the seats of Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category were increased from 28 to 31. It is in 3 2025:HHC:2118-DB the backdrop of the said development that the petitioners have approached this Court. 4. When the case was taken up for consideration on previous dates, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the instructions of the petitioners, after the issuance of Notification dated 21.09.2020, in fact, no fresh requisition was sent by the respondents upto 31.12.2020 or till the date of written objective screening test and therefore, the arbitrary increase in the number of seats from 28 to 31 was bad in law. In the backdrop of submissions of learned counsel, this Court on 03.01.2025 passed the following order:- “Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that rejoinder has been filed. Registry is directed to place the same on record, if in order. He has drawn the attention of the Court to advertisement Annexure P-1 and submitted that in terms of the advertisement, though, it was mentioned that number of posts could be increased or decreased, but it was further specifically stated therein that for the purpose of increase in the number of advertised posts, only those posts shall be included in the number of posts already advertised, qua which requisition will be received up to 31.12.2020 or the date of written objective/screening test, whichever was earlier. He submitted that as per his instructions and as is evident from the reply filed by the respondents, requisition qua additional three posts of SC unreserved category was not received by the Commission before 31.12.2020. Learned Counsel for the respondents to have specific instructions in this regard. 4 2025:HHC:2118-DB List on 07.01.2025.” 5. In response thereto, necessary instructions were obtained by learned counsel for the respondents-Board and on the strength of said instructions, on 07.01.2025, the following order was passed:- “In compliance to order dated 03.01.2025, Mr. Rahul Thakur, learned Counsel for respondent-Electricity Board has handed over instructions received from the Under Secretary (FTE) HPSEB Ltd, Shimla. On the strength of said instructions, the Court stands apprised that there was no enhancement in the number of posts which were sent alongwith requisition to the Staff Selection Commission to be filled up, however, as there was a discrepancy qua the application of the reservation roster, therefore, the number of seats reserved for the category concerned was enhanced but without tinkering with the actual number of posts, qua which requisition was sent to the Commission. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case be listed on 09.01.2025 to enable him to have instructions.” 6. Today, I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. It is now evident in terms of the instructions which were imparted by learned counsel for the respondents-Electricity Board that the number of posts, i.e. 156, which were advertised of Junior Engineer (Electrical) were not increased, but as there was some discrepancy observed with regard to the number of seats which were to be offered to the Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category, to remove this discrepancy, the number of posts reserved for this 5 2025:HHC:2118-DB category were enhanced from 28 to 31. 7. Now, at this stage this Court would like to point out that the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category. Meaning thereby, that a candidate of this category was one to be least affected by the increase in the number of seats of this particular category as this category was indeed a beneficiary. However, candidates of this category have filed this petition. Why so? the reason is obvious that on the basis of their merit in the written test petitioners were not able to make it in top 28 nor they were able to make it in top 31 after the number of seats were increased. The Court stands informed that in terms of the merit of the petitioners, they could not make in three times the number of candidates who were invited for the ultimate screening for appointment against the post of Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category. This information has been made available by learned counsel for respondent No.3. 8. This Court is in fact of the considered view that the petitioners have no locus-standi to file and maintain this petition. First of all, the premise of filing the case that there was an arbitrary increase in the number of posts, has been found to be totally incorrect because the respondents have categorically stated that the number of seats were not increased from 156. The petitioners could not demonstrate to the contrary in the course of hearing of the same. 9. Now, because the number of posts of Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category were increased from 28 to 31, obviously the 6 2025:HHC:2118-DB number of posts of some other categories were adversely affected. However, candidates of none of such categories approached the Court and they are the candidates who belong to the beneficiary category who have approached the Court probably feeling aggrieved by the fact that they were not able to make a cut on the basis of their merit. 10. Thus, as it is clear that there was no violation of Clause- vi of the advertisement as the number of seats which were initially advertised, i.e. total 156, were not increased or decreased and further as the enhancement in the seats reserved for Scheduled Caste (Un-reserved) category was for the category to which the petitioners belong, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge January 09, 2025 (Rishi)