Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16576 (HP)

Minakshi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2026-03-19

Ajay Mohan Goel

body2026
JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. Quash and set aside the action of the respondents in not awarding marks to the petitioner for her land-holding certificate during the selection process for the post of Clerk (HI) under the Special Recruitment Drive. ii. Quash and set aside the appointment order dated 17.07.2025 of respondent No.3. iii. Direct the respondents to reconsider the candidature of the petitioner by awarding due marks for land holding in accordance with the applicable recruitment criteria and to re-draw the final merit list accordingly. iv. Direct the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post of Clerk (HI) if she is found to be higher in merit upon correct computation of marks.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner participated in the process initiated by the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, vide Annexure P-1, dated 02.07.2022, to fill up posts mentioned therein, including two posts of Clerk. The drive was to fill up the posts from amongst persons with disability. According to the petitioner, in terms of the evaluation criteria contained in the advertisement, the petitioner was entitled for one mark, as she was falling within the definition of a “landless family/family having land less than one hectare”, but one mark was wrongly not granted in her favour, which had resulted in her not being selected against the post in issue. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in terms of Annexure P-1, one post of Clerk was reserved for Deaf and hard of hearing category and one post was reserved for Locomotor disability category. The petitioner had applied under the Deaf and hard of hearing category. Learned counsel further submitted that despite the fact that the petitioner had appended the requisite documents demonstrating that she qualified as a candidate falling under the category of “landless family”, yet the respondents erroneously did not grant one mark to her on this count, which had resulted in her non-selection. Learned counsel also submitted that as the non-selection of the petitioner was totally arbitrary, the petition be allowed and the selection of the candidate, i.e., the private respondent, be held to be bad and respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel also submitted that as the non-selection of the petitioner was totally arbitrary, the petition be allowed and the selection of the candidate, i.e., the private respondent, be held to be bad and respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel made this prayer on the contention that if one mark is added to the present score of the petitioner, then her score comes to 14.4, which will be more than the score of the selected candidate, who secured 14.14 marks. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General took the Court through the reply filed by the respondents-State and submitted that when the credentials of the petitioner were scrutinized by the Special Selection Committee, it was found during verification that the petitioner had not attached any landless certificate issued by the competent Authority with her application form at the time of applying for post in issue and on this count, the subsequent submission of said certificate by her at a belated stage before the Selection Committee, was not taken into consideration, as it would have prejudiced other qualified and eligible candidates, who had submitted all the requisite documents/certificates along-with the application. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the Selection Committee acted in a fair manner and scrutinized the merit of the candidates on the strength of the documents, which were appended with the application form and as the petitioner had not appended any landless certificate issued by a competent Authority with the application form, one mark on this count was rightly not awarded to her. He submitted that the landless certificate was to be issued by Tehsildar concerned, who is the competent Authority to issue such certificate and petitioner did not append a valid certificate issued by Tehsildar with the application form. 5. When this case was listed 02.03.2026, this Court directed the respondents to produce the original record, including application form. which was submitted by the petitioner along-with requisite documents. The same was produced by the State before the Court on 18.03.2026 and on the said date, the following order was passed by the Court:- “Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the relevant record in terms of the previous order, which stands perused by the Court. which was submitted by the petitioner along-with requisite documents. The same was produced by the State before the Court on 18.03.2026 and on the said date, the following order was passed by the Court:- “Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced the relevant record in terms of the previous order, which stands perused by the Court. A perusal of the same, inter alia, demonstrates that against the column of ‘landless persons’, there are ticks both against ‘Yes’ as well as ‘No’ and there is a whitener mark upon both of them. It is evident with the naked eyes that the tick upon ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ is similar as upon other columns, meaning thereby that prima facie it does not appear that there is any interpolation by a third person on the document. From this, it is evident that the petitioner had not positively ticked the relevant column in the Employment Form to reflect her as a person belonging to landless person. Besides this, record demonstrates that there was no Landless Certificate issued by the Competent Authority, i.e. Tehsildar, appended by the petitioner alongwith Application Form. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case be taken up tomorrow. As prayed for, list on 19.03.2026. Let the record be produced for the perusal of the Court tomorrow.” 6. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that as per his instructions, the petitioner had ticked both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ against the Column of a ‘landless persons’ and then applied white fluid also upon the same, but according to him, this was done because there was no clarification in the form whether or not a candidate was supposed to tick the said Clause or not. 7. The original application form which was submitted by the petitioner along-with the requisite documents, which has again been made available for the perusal of the Court today, by the learned Additional Advocate General, demonstrates that under the heading "Details of list of documents attached along-with the Form” at Sr. No. 2, against the Column "Landless Family/Family” having land less than one hectare to be certified by the concerned Revenue Officer, the petitioner had ticked both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and then applied a whitener thereon. No. 2, against the Column "Landless Family/Family” having land less than one hectare to be certified by the concerned Revenue Officer, the petitioner had ticked both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ and then applied a whitener thereon. The documents appended with the application form further demonstrate that the petitioner had appended a report, issued by the Patwari of Patwar Circle Ropri, Tehsil Lad Bhadol, District Mandi, H.P., to the effect that from the parental side of the petitioner, the land holding was about 3-10-14 bighas. This report, appended by the petitioner along-with her application form, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a certificate issued by the Competent Authority, as per the requirement of the advertisement to assess as to whether the candidate belongs to a “landless family” or not. 8. Not only this, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had ticked both the Columns of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ in the application form against the Clause relating to ‘landless family’, despite being married, the report appended was of the parental side. 9. Now, when she appeared before the Selection Committee, she produced a certificate of land holding issued by Tehsildar, Hamirpur and the same was relating to the family of the husband of the petitioner. The same was to the effect that in terms of the affidavit/self-declaration furnished by Mrs. Meenakshi wife of Mr. Nikhil Patiyal, the family of the applicant, including the applicant herself, was owning land in Muhal Ghanal Kalan, Tehsil Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., which was less than one hectare. 10. As observed hereinabove, along-with the application form, no certificate of land holding issued by the Competent Authority was produced by the petitioner. The certificate which was produced before the Selection Committee, was not taken into consideration by the said Committee on the ground that as the petitioner had not uploaded any certificate with the main application form, consideration thereof would adversely affect those candidates who had already submitted their application forms along-with all the requisite certificates. 11. This Court is of the considered view that the reason and the rational, on the basis of which, the Selection Committee did not take into consideration the certificate of land holding, subsequently produced by the petitioner, is justified in the peculiar facts of the case. 12. The posts advertised were that of a Clerk. The posts were reserved for persons with disabilities. 12. The posts advertised were that of a Clerk. The posts were reserved for persons with disabilities. Even amongst persons with disability, one post was reserved for person with Locomotor disability and one was falling under the category of Deaf and hard of hearing. For such like candidates, the weightage was spelled out in the advertisement, which included one mark for those belonging to landless family, which also was requested to be certified by the concerned Revenue Authority. It was further mentioned in Annexure P-1 that the application along-with relevant supporting documents should reach the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla on or before 20.07.2022. 13. In the present case, admittedly, neither the petitioner had ticked in the application form in the affirmative that she belonged to a landless family nor any valid certificate depicting this fact was otherwise appended with the application form. That being the case, the Screening Committee was under no obligation to accept any fresh certificate from the petitioner relating to land holding and as obviously the taking on record of the said certificate would have prejudiced the selected candidates, who had been prudent enough to submit the applications along-with all supporting documents, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed because now the private respondent, who is serving, cannot be thrown out of job for the acts of omission and commission of the petitioner. 14. In light of above observations, as this court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.