2026:HHC:23967 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2307 of 2022 with CWPs No. 2733 and 3960 of 2022 Reserved on: 17.06.2026 Decided on: 22.06.2026 Uploaded on: 22.06.2026 CWP No. 2307 of 2022 Sh. Muneesh …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents CWP No. 2733 of 2022 Pankaj Sharma …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission and others … Respondents CWP No. 3960 of 2022 Sh. Vivek Chauhan …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ CWPs No. 2307 and 3960 of 2022 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23967 respondents No. 2. : Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 3. : Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5. CWP No. 2733 of 2022 For the petitioner : Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents- State. : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate for respondents No. 2. : Mr. Vinay Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 3 to 7. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge As common issues of law and facts are involved in these petitions, they are being disposed of vide a common judgment. For convenience sake, this Court is referring to the facts involved in CWP No. 2307 of 2022, titled as Muneesh vs. State of H.P. and others. 2. The petitioners before this Court participated in the process of recruitment against the post of Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee-P&A), which post was advertised vide advertisement No. 36/1-2020, dated 02.03.2020 (Annexure P-1). The qualification mentioned for being eligible to the post in issue in the advertisement was as under:- 787 Junior Officer Graduate with one year full time Diploma in HR/ Personnel Management with 55% marks from recognized University. Employees of HPPCL who have acquired the above referred qualification with 55% 3 2026:HHC:23967 (Supervisory Trainee-P&A) At S-0 level marks through full time or part time or through correspondence/ distance mode from a recognized institute/University shall also be eligible / considered. Relaxation in age and Sage of marks as per rules of HPPCL. Knowledge of computer basics i.e. MS Word, Excel, E.mail etc. 3. The petitioner in CWP No. 2307 of 2022 was not possessing the Diploma in HR /Personnel Management with 55 % marks but was possessing the Master’s Degree of Business Administration (M.B.A.) with specialization in Human Resource Management and Operation. Similarly, the petitioner in CWP No. 2377 of 2022, titled as Pankaj Sharma Vs. H.P. Staff Selection Commission was also not possessing the requisite qualification as mentioned in the advertisement but was possessing the Degree of Master’s in Business Administration and the petitioner in CWP No. 3960 of 2022 was also not possessing the requisite diploma but was possessing the Degree of Master’s in Business Administration. Their candidature was rejected on the ground that they were not possessing the requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement i.e. Diploma in HR/Personnel Management. 4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the candidature of the petitioners has been wrongly rejected on the ground that the petitioners were possessing a higher qualification than the requisite qualification prescribed in the advertisement. Learned Counsel submitted that as the qualification being possessed by the petitioners was in the same field, therefore, 4 2026:HHC:23967 simply because they were possessing higher qualification than the one mentioned in the advertisement, they could not have been declared ineligible for the post in issue. Learned Counsel argued that in terms of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, diploma was the minimum qualification prescribed and therefore, as the petitioners were possessing qualification higher than the one required, they could not have been held ineligible nor their candidature could not have been rejected on the ground that they were not possessing the requisite qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Learned Counsel further submitted that in terms of Employment and Service Conditions of respondent No. 2, copy whereof is appended with the rejoinder filed to the reply of respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 2307 of 2022, the post, to which, the petitioners were seeking recruitment was the feeder post to the E1 level and for this post, the qualification of M.B.A. was the essential qualification for appointment. They submitted that in light of the fact that for the promotional post, MBA was a requisite and essential qualification, therefore also, the candidature of the petitioners could not have been rejected on the ground that they were not possessing the qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. No other point was urged. 5. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that as the requirement in terms of the advertisement was of a Diploma in HR/Personnel Management with 55% marks from a recognized 5 2026:HHC:23967 University and the petitioners submitted Degrees in MBA, they are not eligible for the post in issue. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioners were not found eligible in terms of the documents submitted by them as they were not possessing the qualification for appointment against the post, which was prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. They submitted that it was necessary that the candidates were fulfilling the eligibility as was mentioned in the advertisement and as admittedly, the petitioners were not possessing the Diploma in the necessary Trade, the rejection of their candidature cannot be faulted with. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the post to which the petitioners were seeking appointment was a promotional post to the E1 level was incorrect as the petitioners were seeking appointment to the post of Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee-P&A) which was a S-0 level post, whereas it was a S-3 level post which was the feeder category post for promotion to the E-1 Level post. Accordingly, they submitted that there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 7. In terms of the advertisement, the eligibility criteria for being eligible to the post of Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee-P&A) 6 2026:HHC:23967 was Graduation with one year full time Diploma in HR/Personnel Management with 55% marks from recognized University. This was the requirement mentioned as the essential qualification. Thus, in the advertisement, it was not mentioned that the eligibility criteria was Graduation with one year full Diploma HR/Personnel Management or Graduation with one year full time Diploma in Personnel Management or its equivalent or higher qualification. Therefore, the employer was very much clear in its mind that only those candidates, who were Graduates and possessing one year Diploma in HR/Personnel Management were eligible for consideration against the post in issue. 8. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners were not fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the advertisement. However, according to them, because they were possessing Degree of Master’s in Business Administration, which was a higher qualification, therefore, they were eligible for the post in issue. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jomon K.K. vs. Shajimon P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711, decided on 02.04.2025, has been pleased to hold as under:- “20. Next, turning to the crux of the issue, it is absolutely necessary to bear in mind that though the posts of Syrang and Lascar are included in Class III of the Subordinate Service, the requisite qualifications for appointment on such posts as ordained by the Special Rules 7 2026:HHC:23967 are different. Moreover, it is specifically ordained by Rule 6 of the Special Rules as follows: "6. Other Qualifications. No person shall be eligible for appointment to the categories specified in column (1) of the Table below by the method specified in column (2) unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed in the corresponding entry in column (3) thereof." 21. As noted in the factual narrative, possession of a current Lascar's licence is an essential qualification for anyone aspiring for the post of Lascar. This is what is laid down in column (3), i.e., the qualifications required; and going by what is said therein read with Rule 6, there can be no gainsaying that apart from those having a current Lascar's licence, none else is eligible. The word "current" is also significant in the sense that the Rules insist on a subsisting licence, i.e., a certificate of competency, which is valid and operative during the time the last date for receiving applications intervenes. 22. The advertisement did not require anything else other than what the Special Rules require. The absence of express mention that those holding a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence which, according to the Director, are superior to a Lascar's licence, is insignificant, irrelevant and immaterial having regard to the clear terms of Rule 6 (supra). 23. Viewed from a different angle, on a conjoint reading of Rule 6 of the Special Rules and the advertisement, we find both mentioning a particular qualification, i.e., a current 8 2026:HHC:23967 Lascar's licence, which each aspirant has to possess for being considered eligible to participate in the process of selection, thereby creating a distinct class and it is aspirants falling in such class alone who could have applied for being considered. Thus, any aspirant, even though possessing a Syrang's licence or a Driver's licence not being part of such distinct class, could not have been considered eligible. The classification has not been shown to be and is not unreasonable. ……….. 36.We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other factors. It has to be remembered that, at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand 9 2026:HHC:23967 and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or inflexible rules or norms. Lack of public employment opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed forever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled up by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub- serving me common good? Does not the State have the obligation to strive to sure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no Court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher 10 2026:HHC:23967 qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post.” 10. Thereafter, this judgment has been followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in General Manager (HR) and another versus K. Poovarasan, 2026 INSC 581, decided on 19.05.2026, in which, a Division Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold as under:- “9. Having considered the matter in its entirety, though we may have sympathy for the respondent, the conduct attributed to him and the settled position of law leave us with no option but interfere with the impugned judgment. Public employment must be made available to all eligible candidates in accordance with the prescribed qualifications. At this juncture, it would be apposite to quote the observation of this Court in Jomon K.K. v. Shajimon P. and others (supra) as follows: "36. We hasten to add that whether or not the action of the employer to exclude an aspirant from the process of selection (on the ground that either he is over qualified for a particular post or has qualifications which, being over and above what is ordained by statutory rules or rules framed under the proviso to Rule 309 of the Constitution, does not match the qualification specifically required) is justified has to be decided considering the rules governing the selection, the qualifications prescribed, the nature of duty to be performed, the nature of service to be rendered and a host of other 11 2026:HHC:23967 factors. It has to be remembered that at times, the employer's need to have the right people at the right place, and not always the higher qualified, has to be conceded. We know of decisions holding that over-qualification cannot be a disqualification since such an approach amounts to discouraging the acquisition of qualifications on the one hand and on the other, such an approach could be seen as arbitrary, discriminatory and not in national interest. However, this principle cannot be put in a straitjacket imposing rigid or public employment inflexible opportunities in sufficient numbers may force even a Master rules or norms. Lack of degree holder to apply for the job of a peon but, if he is appointed upon his application being favourably considered, what happens to the aspirants who have not had the means of pursuing study beyond the 12th standard? Do they remain unemployed forever, if all or majority of the posts of peon are filled upon by such degree holders? What happens if the Master degree holder, in pursuit of greener pastures, leaves the post of Peon for a better and secured higher job commensurate with his qualifications after a couple of years? Does it not, in such a case, burden the public exchequer by requiring the employer to initiate a fresh selection process? Is not the State, as a model employer, obliged to ensure that the posts of peon are filled up only by those having the basic qualification, and not by over qualified candidates, for sub-serving the common good? Does not the 12 2026:HHC:23967 State have the obligation to strive to ensure that all citizens have adequate means of livelihood? These are questions which no court can afford to ignore. We end by saying that each case that comes before the Court has to be decided on its own peculiar facts and the problem that it presents for resolution and that there can be no universally accepted rule that every time, a higher qualified candidate is to be preferred to a candidate who matches the essential qualification required for the post. ……. 38. This Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54 held that if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law and rendering the appointment a nullity and principles of equity in a case of such nature would have no role to play; also that, sympathy should not be misplaced." 10. In the present case, it is manifest from the communication dated 20.10.2009 sent by the appellants to the Employment Exchange that the minimum qualification prescribed was a pass in the s standard and the maximum qualification prescribed was that the candidate should not have passed the Intermediate or 12th Standard оr 10+2 Examination. The rationale behind prescribing an upper limit of qualification is both reasonable and equitable, namely, to provide employment opportunities to persons who, owing to circumstances of life, could not pursue higher education. The 13 2026:HHC:23967 State, as a model employer, is justified in reserving certain categories of posts for such persons so that they are not compelled to compete with more highly qualified candidates against whom they would ordinarily stand little chance of selection. Such a policy has consistently been upheld by the Courts. Thus, when the post was specifically intended for candidates possessing lower educational qualifications, permitting a person with higher qualifications to secure such employment would necessarily result in depriving a genuinely eligible and deserving candidate of the opportunity.” 11. Thus, it is evident from the above two judgments that Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to uphold the principle that wherein a particular qualification is mentioned for the purpose of appointment, then a person who claims that he possesses a higher qualification than the one mentioned in the Rules or the advertisement, does not has a right of appointment against the post in issue. In the present case, as has been observed by me hereinabove also, the advertisement was clear and completely unambiguous as to what was the essential qualification required by a candidate for applying to the post in issue, which was Graduation with one year Diploma in HR/Personnel Management with 55% marks from a recognized University. Though, it was contended on the part of learned Counsel for the petitioners that as per the advertisement what was mentioned therein was “minimum essential 14 2026:HHC:23967 qualification as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules” and therefore, as the petitioners were possessing higher qualification, they were eligible for the post in issue but as per this Court, this is complete misreading of the advertisement by the petitioners. In the advertisement, where essential qualifications were prescribed for different posts, it was mentioned “minimum essential qualification as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules”. Thereafter, against post Code No. 787 for the post of Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee P&A), i.e. the post in issue, the following was mentioned:- “Graduate with one year full time Diploma in HR/ Personnel Management with 55% marks from recognized University. Employees of HPPCL who have acquired the above referred qualification with 55% marks through full time or part time or through correspondence/distance mode from a recognized institute/University shall also be eligible/ considered. Relaxation in age and %age of marks as per rules of HPPCL. Knowledge of computer basics i.e. MS Word, Excel, E.mail etc.” 12. As per this Court, the words “minimum essential qualification as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules” mean that until and unless, a candidate was possessing the qualifications mentioned therein, he or she was not eligible to apply. This did not mean that a person with a higher qualification was eligible to apply. Had that been the case or the intent of the employer, nothing prevented the employer from mentioning so in the advertisement. 15 2026:HHC:23967 However, the employer being conscious of the fact that the candidates with what qualification should apply to the post in issue, categorically mentioned therein that it was only a Graduate candidate with one year full time Diploma in HR/Personnel Management with 55% marks from recognized University, who was eligible. Neither any equivalence was mentioned in the advertisement nor any higher qualification was mentioned as good enough to render a candidate eligible to the post in issue. 13. As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the post, against which petitioners were seeking appointment, are promotional post to the Executive level is concerned, one finds from the perusal of the Employment and Service Conditions appended with the rejoinder filed to the reply by respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 2307 of 2022 under the heading of Recruitment and Promotion that it is the S-3 level post, which is the feeder category for E1 level and as the post of Junior Officer (Supervisory Trainee-P&A) is S-0 level post, it is not understood as to how it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the post of Junior Officer was the feeder category post for promotion to E1 level. 14. 14. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, as obviously the advertisement was not unambiguous that it were only the candidates, who were possessing the qualification mentioned therein, who were eligible to apply for the post in issue and as the petitioners admittedly were not possessing the requisite qualification 16 2026:HHC:23967 mentioned in the advertisement, but were possessing higher qualification, the present petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 22, 2026 (narender)