1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3998 of 2025 Date of decision: 18.08.2025 Jaswinder Kumar. ...Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1 : Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner’s name figured at Serial No.1 in the waiting list panel. Aggrieved that despite three candidates, who had been offered appointment against the General (Unreserved) category, did not join the post, yet the respondents did not recommend his name for appointment against the post in question, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 2. The case. 2(i). An advertisement was issued on 24.05.2022 by the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission -2- inviting applications, inter alia, for 163 posts of Sub-Station Attendant (‘SSA’) under Post Code-972. Out of these, 89 posts were meant for the General (UR) category. Petitioner participated in the selection process against the 89 posts meant for the General (UR) category. 2(ii). Respondent No.1–HP Public Service Commission finalized the result on 19.08.2023 and recommended the names of 163 candidates for appointment to the post of SSA. Petitioner’s name did not figure in this list. On 04.09.2023, respondent No.2 granted approval for issuing offers of appointment to the selected candidates. It is an admitted position of the parties that 10 candidates, who were offered appointments, did not join the service. Out of these 10 candidates, 7 were offered appointment against posts meant for the General (UR) category. 2(iii). On 03.11.2023, respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to provide the names of equal number of candidates from the waiting list panel, as 10 selected candidates had not joined the service. This communication was responded to by respondent No.1 after a long period. From the documents on record, it appears that it was only on 14.05.2024 that respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 to first issue order cancelling offers of appointment -3- made to the candidates, who had not joined within the stipulated period. 2(iv). On receipt of the above communication, respondent No.2, on 24.07.2024, issued an order cancelling the appointments of those 10 candidates, including 7 candidates belonging to the General (UR) category, who had not joined pursuant to the offers of appointment given to them. 2(v). On 08.08.2024, respondent No.1 recommended the names of 10 candidates from the waiting list for appointment to the post of SSA. Appointments were offered to these 10 candidates by respondent No.2 on 27.08.2024. Out of the 7 candidates recommended against the General (UR) category, 3 did not join. On getting this information under the Right to Information Act, the petitioner submitted a representation on 10.12.2024 to respondent No.2, requesting that a further requisition be sent to respondent No.1 for recommending his name from the waiting list panel for appointment to the post of SSA under the General (UR) category. Hearing no response from the respondents, the petitioner instituted the present petition seeking the following substantive relief:- -4- “(i) That the Respondents No.1 & 2 may kindly be directed to complete the whole exercise to fill the unfilled posts from the waiting panel in a time-bound manner by directing the Respondent No.1- Commission to make recommendations to Respondent No.2 for the three vacant posts of Sub Station Attendant (Post Code 972), against General (UR) category from the waiting/merit list drawn for the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement in a time bound manner, and thereafter, Respondent No.2-Board may be directed to take further consequential action thereupon in a time bound manner.” 2(vi). Respondent No.1 in its reply has taken plea that as per Note No.(viii) below ‘Essential qualification and experience’ in the advertisement ‘The recommendations of the Commission will be valid till the appointments are offered to the candidates by the Appointing Authority or for a period of one year from the date of recommendations which-ever is earlier. Further, the recommendations shall be made by the Commission from the existing panel as and when the requisitions in respect of the additional vacancies are received from different departments for similar posts with similar/common Recruitment and Promotion Rules till the waiting panel in operation is exhausted or six months, whichever is earlier.’ It has also been pleaded that as per respondent No.1’s Rules of Business 2023, Clause 6(D) (vii) under heading ‘Declaration of Final Result/Merit List and Recommendations to the Government’, ‘If a candidate fails to join the post on the basis of the recommendation(s) of the -5- Commission, the replacement will be given by the Commission at its discretion on demand from the concerned appointing authority after cancellation of the offer of appointment of such candidate, if the demand is received within a period of one year from the date of sending recommendation(s) by the Commission to the concerned appointing authority provided that no fresh requisition has been processed and advertisement has not been issued / published for filling up of the said post in the intervening period.’ Respondent No.1’s defense as projected by its learned counsel is that it was on 25.07.2024 that respondent No.2 had requested respondent No.1 to provide replacements from the waiting panel/merit list to substitute 10 candidates, who had failed to join their duties and whose offers of appointment had been cancelled for this reason by respondent No.2 on 24.07.2024. Respondent No.1 accordingly recommended the names of 10 candidates from the waiting list panel/merit list as replacements on 08.08.2024 and thereafter, no further request was received from respondent No.2 within one year for providing any replacement. That at this belated stage, replacement cannot be provided as the initial recommendation was sent on 19.08.2023 and the waiting list panel/merit list has expired -6- in the interregnum in view of respondent No.1’s Rules of Business and Note No.(viii) of the advertisement in question. 2(vii). Respondent No.2 in its reply admits that out of the recommendations made by respondent No.1 to replace the names of 10 candidates, who did not join pursuant to the offers of appointment issued to them, 3 vacancies still remain in the General (UR) category. It is stated that no further requisition was sent to respondent No.1 for recommending the names of candidates from the waiting list panel as it was no longer subsistent. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. Consideration. 4(i). The result was declared by respondent No.1 on 19.08.2023. The offers of appointment were given to the selected candidates by respondent No.2 on 04.09.2023. Ten candidates did not join services. These included seven selected against the General (UR) category. Respondent No.2 had sought replacement for these ten candidates from respondent No.1 on 03.11.2023. It was on 25.07.2024 that respondent No.1 had directed respondent No.2 to first cancel the appointments given to those ten candidates, who had not -7- joined despite being offered appointments, to enable it to recommend names of candidates next in the waiting list. Had this action been taken by respondent No.1 within a reasonable time, the delay in respondent No.2’s cancelling the appointments of these ten candidates might have been avoided. Respondent No.2 cancelled the appointments of ten candidates on 24.07.2024. The period from 03.11.2023 to 24.07.2024, i.e., about eight months were lost by the respondents in merely exchanging correspondence with each other on compliance of procedural formalities for seeking replacements for the ten selected candidates who did not join. Out of the next ten names furnished by respondent No.1 on 08.08.2024, three candidates have still not joined against the General (UR) category. These vacancies are stated to be still lying vacant and as approved by learned counsel for the parties have not been made part of any advertisement till date. 4(ii). In Virender Singh vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr.1 almost similar factual position was involved and arising out of same advertisement concerning requisition and recommendation of the names against the post of Electrician Power House Electrical (PHE). 1 CWP No.14724 of 2024 decided on 03.03.2025. -8- In the said case also selected candidates to whom the offer of appointments were given did not join the post; Name of the petitioner (therein) figured in the waiting list; Subsequent request made by respondent No.2 seeking recommendations of the next candidates from the waiting list was not accepted by respondent No.1 on the premise that request was delayed from the outer limited of one year from the date of making initial recommendations prescribed under its Rules of Business. The question determined in the said case was as to whether the respondents entrusted with conducting a selection process and taking it to its logical conclusion were negligent in not taking timely action at different steps and if so, whether petitioner should suffer for their indifferent attitude to what was at stake for the participating candidates. It was held as under:- 4(i)(a). The advertisement in question was issued on 24.05.2022, wherein four posts of Electrician (PHE) were kept reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC (UR) category. The result of the selection process was declared on 21.06.2023. 4(i)(b). On 10.08.2023, respondent No.1 recommended the names of 22 candidates for their appointment as Electrician (PHE) including four candidates belonging to OBC (UR) category. Offers of appointment were issued to the recommended candidates by respondent No.2. Four candidates belonging to OBC(UR) category did not join within the period stipulated by respondent No.2. 4(i)(c). It was on 10.10.2023 that respondent No.2 wrote to respondent No.1 for providing replacement of candidates selected against 04 posts of OBC (UR) category. -9- Respondent No.1 took five months to respond to the above letter and on 05.03.2024, directed respondent No.2 to first cancel/withdraw the offers of appointment given to the previously recommended candidates to enable it to send replacements/fresh recommendations. There is no explanation in the reply as to why respondent No.1 took five months for responding to the request made by respondent No.2 on 10.10.2023. In case, respondent No.1 felt that such course of action was mandatorily required to be followed by respondent No.2, it was for respondent No.1 to immediately direct respondent No.2 to cancel/withdraw the appointment orders of the recommended candidates, who had not joined their duties. Prompt action was not taken by respondent No.1 on the request of respondent No.2. Five precious months were wasted in responding to respondent No.2’s letter. 4(i)(d). Respondent No.2, instead of cancelling/ withdrawing offers of appointment as directed by respondent No.1 on 05.03.2024, reiterated on 03.04.2024 that as per its past practices, it had never withdrawn the offers of appointment from the recommended candidates, who failed to join the duties; Offers of appointment given to such of the candidates, who failed to join their duties within the stipulated period, were automatically deemed to have been withdrawn/cancelled. Firstly, respondent No.2 did not comply with the directions of respondent No.1 inasmuch as instead of cancelling/withdrawing offers of appointment from the previously recommended candidates, respondent No.2 insisted on 03.04.2024 that such course of action was not required. Secondly, even this communication was sent by respondent No.2, 28 days after receiving respondent No.1’s letter dated 05.03.2024. It was finally on 17.05.2024 that respondent No.1 cancelled/withdrawn the offers of appointment made to previously recommended candidates. The action, which respondent No.2 ought to have taken months ago, was taken after a long period & after repeated, unnecessary and avoidable exchange of communications with respondent No.1. Precious time was lost by the respondents while carrying out the exercise. The initial delay on part of respondent No.1 to respond to the request of respondent No.2 also assumes significance considering the fact that the second time replacement request made by respondent No.2 was rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground of same being barred by 13 days from the date of making initial recommendations on 10.08.2023. The fall out of the same should not be borne by the petitioner. He was not responsible for the delay that was caused on account of respondents leisurely proceeding in the matter. 4(ii). It was on 20.05.2024 that respondent No.1 made recommendations of next four candidates from the waiting/merit list. And then a month later, on 29.06.2024, -10- respondent No.2 offered appointments to these next four candidates. Out of them, only one candidate joined. Three vacancies of OBC (UR) category remained vacant. Respondent No.2 cancelled/withdrew offers of appointment from the three candidates on 20.08.2024 and called upon respondent No.1 on 23.08.2024 to recommend next three names. Respondent No.1 refused to accept the request of respondent No.2 on the ground of there being 13 days delay on part of respondent No.2 in making this request from the outer limit of one year prescribed under its Rules of Business, from the date respondent No.1 made first recommendations on 10.10.2023. For convenience, a tabulated version indicating the time taken by the respondents in seeking and recommending names for the four posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category is drawn as under:- Sr. No. Date Particulars Time gap for response/ action taken by the respondents 1. 21.06.2023 Result of selection process for the post in question was declared. 04 posts were meant for OBC (UR). 2. 10.08.2023 Respondent No.1 recommended names of 04 candidates against 04 posts meant for OBC (UR). 3. 10.10.2023 Respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to provide replacements as all 04 selected candidates did not join. 4. 05.03.2024 Respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to first withdraw/cancel offers of appointment given to previously recommended 04 candidates in order to enable it to send fresh recommendations. Respondent No.1 took almost 05 (five) months to respond to respondent No.2’s request for sending fresh recommendations. 5. 03.04.2024 Respondent No.2 did not comply with respondent No.1’s request of withdrawing the offers from previously recommended candidates and insisted that the same was not necessary in view of deemed cancellation clause on non- joining within stipulated period. Respondent No.2 did not comply with respondent No.1’s directions and also consumed 01 (One) month to respond to respondent No.1’s request. 6. 17.05.2024 Respondent No.2 cancelled appointment of 04 candidates originally recommended by respondent No.1 against OBC (UR) category. More than 02 (two) months were taken by respondent No.2 for cancelling the appointments offered to previously -11- recommended candidates. 7. 20.05.2024 Respondent No.1 recommended names of 20 next candidates from waiting list panel including 04 for OBC (UR) category. 8. 29.06.2024 Next 04 candidates (2nd lot) were offered appointments by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 took 01 (one) month to offer appointments to next four recommended candidates. 9. 20.08.2024 Respondent No.2 cancelled appointments of 03 candidates, who did not join within stipulated period against posts of OBC (UR) category. 10. 23.08.2024 Respondent No.2 requested respondent No.1 to make further recommendations for the three vacant posts. 11. 16.10.2024 Respondent No.1 declined to recommend next three names on the ground of respondent No.2’s request being barred by 13 days under respondent No.1’s Rules of Business. Respondent No.1 took more than two months to respond to respondent No.2’s request dated 23.08.2024. 4(iii). The documents on record and the above table make it manifestly clear that there have been times when respondent No.1 has given responses to respondent No.2’s communication after huge time gap. Also on number of occasions, instead of acting promptly and abiding with the directions of respondent No.1, respondent No.2 had been taking its own sweet time to respond and act. Three writ petitions were also filed in this Court on the subject matter seeking directions to the respondents to promptly discharge their duties. The resultant chain reaction delay in seeking recommendations on part of respondent No.2-Board for the three vacant posts from respondent No.1 would not have occurred, had both the respondents, in particular, respondent No.2 acted with diligence, care, caution and with due regard to the fact that their actions were to determine the fate/career of candidates. As the things stand, because of merry-go-round played by the respondents, out of four posts of Electrician (PHE) meant for OBC (UR) category, three are lying vacant. Petitioner is stated to be the only candidate available and desirous of joining the post. He is otherwise at number three in the list of next three in order of merit as prepared by him, which is not denied by the respondents. 4(iv). The names of the candidates recommended in the second instance by respondent No.1 were issued offers of appointment by respondent No.2 on 29.06.2024. Out of -12- these four recommended candidates, only one person (Sh. Vishal) had joined. It was only on 20.08.2024 that respondent No.2 issued cancellation order in respect of offers of appointment made to three other recommended candidates, who had not joined the post in question within the stipulated period. Even though the communication in this regard was sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 on 20.08.2024, the documents on record make it amply clear that at times respondent No.1 and at other times, respondent No.2 had been remiss in promptly attending to each other’s communications. Consequence of lapse on part of the respondents in diligently responding to each other’s communication is that fresh recommendations/ replacements sought for by respondent No.2 from respondent No.1 have been delayed by 13 days from the prescribed period of one year under the Rules of Business of respondent No.1. In my considered view, in the given facts and circumstances, this delay deserves to be condoned as it has caused irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner. 4(v). Reliance placed by learned counsel for respondent No.1 upon Dharmender Kumar3 is of no consequence. The issue involved therein was “Whether a candidate whose name has been included in the waiting list is entitled for appointment against the unfilled post arising out of the joining and thereafter resignation of the selected candidate”. The instant case does not pertain to situation where candidate whose name was recommended joined the post and thereafter resigned. Here, the recommended candidates never joined, but on account of negligence of respondents, more particularly of respondent No.2, there has been delay in seeking further recommendations/ replacements. In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Versus Surendra Kumar and others, (2019) 2 SCC 195, relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.1, it was held that period of one year for operating the wait list is to be computed from the date recommendations were first made. There is no dispute about this position in the instant petition. The question involved in this petition is different. The point being considered here is where the cadre controlling authority and the recommending authority have themselves been remiss in taking timely action and have rather consumed inordinate time, resulting in 13 days delay in seeking next recommendations, should the petitioner be made to suffer, who otherwise would have secured a job against three vacant posts, that too, meant for OBC (UR) category. It would be pertinent to refer at this stage to Varun Dhiman Versus State of H.P. & ors.2 In the said case, three selected candidates did not join their duties and respondent No.3 therein (H.P. Staff Selection Commission) 2 CWP No.3366/2020, decided on 20.7.2021 -13- was requested to sponsor names of next three candidates from the waiting list. Respondent No.3 declined the request by invoking its Rules of Business & Procedure, wherein validity of waiting panel was upto one year from the date of recommendations in case of non-joining of earlier recommended candidates. Hon’ble Division Bench found from the records that respondent No.2-Department had not even bothered to deal with files during considerable period. Settled legal position was reiterated that: A candidate in the waiting list has no indefeasible right to be appointed; State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies, however, that does not mean that the State has the license to act in an arbitrary manner; There has to be a conscious decision even not to fill up vacancies, which also has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. In the facts of the case, deprecating the negligence on part of respondent No.2- Department therein in taking cogent and timely steps in seeking recommendations, it was held as under:- “15 Judged in light of the aforesaid exposition of law, the respondent-State has failed to spell out any cogent and convincing reasons as to why no steps were taken to fill up 3 posts from the waiting list. 16 The officials of respondent No.2 being the government officials are not free to act like an ordinary individual, in dealing with the public appointment, as they cannot act arbitrarily at their own sweet will, rather their action must be in conformity with some standard or norm which are not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. 17 The action of the respondents must not be arbitrary or capricious, but must be based on some principle which meets the test of reason and relevance. After all, it is the principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action that lies on the core of entire constitutional scheme and structure. 18 The concept of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness pervades the entire constitutional spectrum and is a golden thread which runs through the whole fabric of the Constitution. Thus, Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution accords right to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with principles of natural justice. Therefore, any law made or action taken by the employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly and reasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. 19 As observed earlier, it is highly regrettable that the officials/officers of respondent No.2 have been completely oblivious to the fact that the office entrusted to them is sacred and was meant for use and not for abuse. 20 The officials/officers of respondent No. 2 cannot act as despots or monarchs and are obliged to act in accordance with the principles of democracy, equity, equality and solidarity. 21 The entire scenario shocks the conscious of this Court to come across such inaction committed by those who are at the helm of affairs of respondent No.2. 22. To say the least, respondent No.2 which is a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of -14- India has conducted in itself of untrustworthiness and like a belligerent litigant has dragged the petitioner to an un-necessary and otherwise avoidable litigation. Instead of gracefully accepting its mistake, respondent No.2 could not resist the temptation of litigation and has fought this legal battle as if it was a war. The battle otherwise is “uneven” as on one side is a public institution whereas on the other side is a private individual. 23. As such, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that public money has been wasted because of adamant behaviour of officers of respondent No.2 due to litigious attitude adopted by these officers in pursuing the instant litigation before this Court and trying to justify the inaction, which otherwise is not at all justifiable. 24. It must be remembered that the State defined within the ambit of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not an ordinary party trying to win a case against one of its own citizens by hook or by crook. The State’s interest is to meet honest claims, vindicate a substantial defence and never to score a technical point or overreach a weaker party to avoid a just liability or secure an unfair advantage, simply because legal devices provide such an opportunity. 30 It needs to be noticed that respondent No.2, who very well knew that there had been inaction on his part or his officials part, if not earlier, then at least at the time of filing of reply in the instant petition, instead of candidly admitting such lapses, still chose to claim that everything in his department was hunky-dory. The State is expected to contest the litigation in a fair and square manner and not to conceal anything from the Court. 31 As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents could have been well within their right not to fill up the posts, but that could have only been for some valid and cogent reasons. However, here, there is no reason forthcoming from the side of respondent No.2 and rightly so, because the entire fault lies upon respondent No.2 and its officials/officers, who dumped the file. 35 It is not in dispute that even after offering appointment to 22 candidates from the waiting list, 3 posts were still lying vacant on account of non-joining of the candidates, which were required to be filled up from the next in the waiting list, when the panel was still live unless there was a decision to the contrary. Since there is no such decision, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part or on account of the fault of respondent No.2 and its officials/officers. 36 Accordingly, while allowing this writ petition, we direct respondent No.3 to sponsor names of three candidates including the petitioner within a period of one week from today and on such sponsorship, respondent No.2 shall issue appointment order(s) to the petitioner and two others as Laboratory Assistant (Allopathy) on contract basis, OBC (UR) Post Code 654.” The ratio of above judgment applies to the facts of present case. -15- 5. In view of above discussion, there is merit in the instant petition. The same is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.1-Commission is directed to make recommendations to respondent No.2 for the three vacant posts of Electrician (PHE), Post Code 974, against OBC (UR) category from the waiting/merit list drawn for the selection process initiated pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure P-1, within a period of two weeks from today. Respondent No.2-Board is directed to take further consequential action thereupon within next two weeks. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.” It was jointly stated at bar that the above decision has been accepted by the parties and stands implemented. The ratio of the above decision applies to the facts of the instant case as well. The record shows that respondent No.1 & 2 have not acted promptly, they had been taking their own leisure time to respond to each other’s communications, which has resulted in chain reaction delay on part of respondent No.2-Board in seeking further recommendations for vacant posts from respondent No.1, which would not have occurred, had both the respondents acted with due diligence, care, caution and due regard to fact that their actions were to determine the fact/career of the candidates. In the given facts, petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the lapses on part of authorities. 5. In view of above discussion, there is merit in the instant petition. The same is accordingly allowed. -16- Respondent No.2 is directed to complete the necessary formalities within two weeks for seeking recommendations from respondent NJo.1 against three vacant post of Sub Station Attendant, Post Code-972, against General (UR) category, whereafter the necessary follow-up action be taken by respondent No.1 within next one week. Respondent No.2 shall take further consequential action thereupon within next two weeks. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 18th August, 2025 Judge (Pardeep)