( 2025:HHC:25807 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 5147 of 2020 Reserved on: 23.07.2025 Decided on: 04.08.2025 __________________________________________________________ Munish Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.2-HRTC. Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for grant of following substantive reliefs: “1) That the list of 1078 finally selected candidates against 1300 advertised posts of Transport Multi- Purpose Assistant (TMPA) on the basis of merit of total marks obtained in written test held on 17.09.2017 (Annexure A-6), final result of TMPA dated 10.05.2018 (Annexure A-7) declared by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation and appointment letter of respondent No.3 issued on 14.06.2018 (Annexure A-8) 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) whereby General BPL candidates who were included in category of general category may kindly be quashed and set-aside. 2. That the respondents may be directed to redraw the result of Transport Multipurpose Assistants category wise by placing the sub-category candidates in their respective categories and replacing them with other candidates falling in order of merit from 3816 candidates who had qualified the written test. 3. That the respondents be directed to give appointment to the applicant against the post of Transport Multipurpose Assistant (General Category).” 2. The petitioner has shown his grievance against the selection of 1078 Transport Multi- Purpose Assistants (for short, “TMPA”) in the selection process held by the 2nd respondent, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for convenience hereafter referred to as HRTC) in the year 2017-2018. 3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that 1000 posts of TMPA were advertised by HRTC vide advertisement dated 03.08.2017, however, the number of posts were increased to 1300 by way of a corrigendum issued in that behalf. 4. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The written test was held on 17.09.2017. Petitioner found his 3 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) name in the shortlisted candidates at serial No. 713. He was called for verification of the documents on 13.10.2017 at Taradevi, Shimla. 5. The petitioner had secured 71 marks in the written examination and 6.41 marks in document evaluation and thus the aggregate of marks secured by the petitioner was 77.41. 6. Respondent No.2 issued list of 1078 finally selected candidates but the name of the petitioner did not find place. 7. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the official-respondents had violated the norms of maintaining the ratio of reserved category candidates. According to petitioner, the candidates with horizontal reservation were selected against the posts of general category, which was impermissible in law. 8. The petitioner has impleaded private respondent No.3 as respondent on the allegation that though he belongs to general BPL category, but had been selected against general category. 4 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) 9. Respondents have raised an objection that after voluntary and conscious participation in the selection process, petitioner was not entitled to maintain the petition. 10. The official respondents by way of their reply, have specifically denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the entire selection process had been conducted in a transparent and fair manner by duly constituted selection committee and further that the appointments made to the post of TMPA were strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government, from time to time, more specifically, the instructions circulated vide notification dated 17.04.2017. 11. The respondents have also taken a stand that the petitioner did not achieve the cut off merit and as such was not selected. The candidates in general category were selected purely on the basis of their respective merits. 12. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply. In addition to the reiteration of the averments in the petition, the petitioner has raised an altogether new and distinct ground. Petitioner has submitted that he had secured 77.41 marks (71 written + 6.41 evaluation). The break-up of the 5 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) marks awarded to petitioner in evaluation revealed that two marks were awarded to him as BPL candidate. On such basis, petitioner then raised a claim that he should be considered as a general BPL category candidate and since, the cut off merit in said category was lower, he should be offered appointment. It has also been submitted that the vacancies still existed with respondent No.2 in the cadre of TMPA and directions could be issued to the said respondent to appoint the petitioner. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 14. The fact as have emerged from the record, is that the petitioner had applied as general category candidate. His application was not as General BPL category candidate. Though, the petitioner in the entire body of the petition has not mentioned such fact, but it becomes evident from the documents relied upon by the petitioner. The call letter issued to petitioner by the HRTC regarding evaluation/verification of documents has been placed on record as Annexure A-3, which clearly reflects the category of petitioner as ‘General’. Similarly, the list of candidates 6 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) shortlisted for evaluation/ verification finds the name of petitioner at serial No. 713 and again the category is mentioned as ‘General’. 15. In order to succeed in the petition, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish that the merit of general category candidates was disturbed by adjusting the candidates with horizontal reservation in the posts reserved for general category candidates and further by such disturbance, the petitioner was pushed back to such an extent that he was ousted from the select list. In other words, the petitioner had to show that in case his allegation of adjustment of candidates claiming horizontal reservation was established and the list of candidates in general category was prepared, he would secure the merit. 16. In terms of order dated 20.08.2024 passed by this Court, the HRTC has undertaken an exercise to review the merit and it is revealed that the cut off marks for general category candidates, after such review, would be 78.43. 17. Thus, on one hand, petitioner had not been able to establish existence of any individual cause of action in 7 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) his favour, on the other hand, the review of merit by the HRTC has otherwise also made the claim of petitioner untenable. 18. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner could succeed in the petition in case he was able to establish violation of his individual right. Having failed to do so, the petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up the issue of alleged maladjustment, of candidates claiming horizontal reservation, in the quota for general category candidates as a public interest litigation. It is settled that public interest litigation in service matters is not permissible. 19. Coming to the ground raised by the petitioner by way of rejoinder, the petitioner cannot succeed on said ground also for the reasons, firstly, that no such ground was taken in the original petition and secondly, the petitioner having applied as a general category candidate could not be allowed to change his category subsequently. It appears that though the petitioner had applied as general category candidate but at the time of evaluation of documents he submitted BPL certificate for which two marks were allotted to him. This by itself will not be 8 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) sufficient to convert the category of petitioner, although, he may be belonging to BPL category. Once he had applied under the general category, the same cannot be allowed to be changed, specifically in absence of any rule permitting such change. 20. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the proposition that even if the certificate evidencing BPL category was not submitted alongwith the application, its subsequent submission was not barred. He relied upon the judgment passed by a division bench of this Court on 1.5.2024 in CWP 3938 of 2023 titled Pushp Mala vs Registrar General Himachal Pradesh High Court. Though the proposition in principle cannot be disputed, yet the petitioner will not be able to derive any benefit therefrom because the said principle or proposition would apply where the candidate had applied in a particular category and it was the certificate of that very category only, which had been omitted from submission. Where the candidate seeks change of his category, the above principle cannot have application for the simple reason that it will amount to granting unfair advantage to such a candidate by 9 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) entertaining his application in two separate categories simultaneously. 21. The petitioner also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2.2.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2024 titled Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar and others, where the benefit of subsequent submission of certificate was allowed, but again the petitioner cannot be benefited for the reason that in the facts of said case the petitioner therein had taken a plea that he had uploaded his application from a cyber café and it was on account of inadvertent fault that an omission remained in submission of complete information. The Hon’ble Supreme Court believing such contention to be true and also finding that deviation was trivial had allowed the candidate to make good the deficiency at subsequent stage. 22. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper on behalf of the petitioner that the submission of application under general BPL category was result of mistake or inadvertence. Rather, as noticed above, the petitioner had not even mentioned, in the entire body of the petition, the category in which he had applied. Thus, the 10 ( 2025:HHC:25807 ) petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit of aforesaid judgment which has been passed in its peculiar facts. 23. The petitioner having failed to establish his case on merit, is not entitled to any relief. In result, the petition is dismissed. 24. The petition stands accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 4th August, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge