IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No.386 of 2026 Decided on : _21.07.2026 Irfan ... Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Pushpinder Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) Consideration is sought of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1265 of 2020, titled Irfan vs. State of H.P. and another, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed on 07.05.2026. 2. The prayer in the writ petition was for award of 2.5 marks for experience and one mark for training while preparing the select list for the post of Sub Inspector under the OBC (Un-reserved) category by redrawing the merit list on the ground that he had experience, as he had worked as a Constable since the year 2013 and, therefore, had seven years' service and was entitled to 2.5 marks on account of experience. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- 3. It was the case of the appellant that had the said marks been awarded to him, he would have secured 45.01 marks, whereas the selected candidate-respondent No.4, belonging to the said category had secured 45.46 marks and would thus be liable to be appointed. The said claim was based on the fact that the advertisement dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) provided under Clauses 10 & 11 that, out of the 15 marks to be awarded under various heads, 2.5 marks, at the maximum, were to be awarded for experience of five years in Government/Semi-Government organizations relating to the post applied for, at the rate of 0.5 mark for each completed year and one mark for training. 4. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that none of the candidates who were serving as Constables and had applied for the post had been awarded marks either for training or experience and, therefore, since the post of Constable had no connection with the post of Sub Inspector, the action of respondent No. 3 in not awarding such marks was not illegal in any manner. The finding recorded was that the experience gained on the post of Constable could not be treated as experience for the post of Sub Inspector, and in such circumstances, the said benefit was rightly not granted, as the experience had to be relating to the post applied for. The present writ petitioner having not worked on the post of Sub Inspector, was, therefore, not entitled to the said benefit. -3- 5. A perusal of the advertisement in question would go on to show that the advertisement had been issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, whereby various posts were advertised, including the post of Sub Inspector of Police under Post Code 729. The minimum essential qualifications as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules had been prescribed, besides the physical standards. The posts in question were 33 in number against regular vacancies carrying the prescribed Pay Band and Grade Pay of Rs.10900-34800 +4600 GP. The candidates were also required to undergo the prescribed Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test, consisting of a 1500-metre race for male candidates and 800 meters race for female candidates as prescribed for the respective categories. 6. Apparently, the State, on the strength of the notification issued on 17.04.2017, had dispensed with the interview for direct recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV posts and incorporated the provisions regarding 15 marks of evaluation, whereas the written examination carried 85 marks. The said 15 marks were to be awarded under various heads, namely, backward area, landless family, unemployment, BPL family, NSS certificate holders, widow/divorced/single woman, single daughter orphan, training and experience. Clause 10 and Clause 11 dealt with the award of marks for training of at least six months' duration and experience up to a -4- maximum of five years, respectively, and also was covered in the break-up of the said 15 marks. 7. Thus, the said provisions were inbuilt in the selection process, but as per Clause 11, the experience had to be relating to the post applied for, and the learned Single Judge categorically came to the conclusion that the training or experience acquired while working as a Constable would not suffice, as such, for the post of Sub Inspector. It is not in dispute that the promotional hierarchy from the part of Constable consists of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector and, therefore, merely on account of having worked as a Constable, the appellant would not be entitled to the said benefit. 8. The findings are further supported by the specific stand taken by the State in its reply that none of the candidates who had produced training or experience certificates relating to the post of Constable were awarded any marks at the time of evaluation and, therefore, the petitioner could not allege violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The certificates produced by the petitioner could not be related to the post applied for, i.e. Sub Inspector, and the experience gained as a Constable was not considered and connected with the said post and the matter had been fully considered by the Commission. 9. We are of the considered opinion that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as all similarly situated candidates were treated alike. The reasonings assigned by the -5- learned Single Judge for holding that the experience gained as a Constable cannot be treated as experience relating to the post of Sub Inspector, do not suffer from any illegality. We are also of the considered opinion that the criteria providing 15 marks under Post Code 729 does not suffer from any arbitrariness. Consequently, the challenge raised by the appellant is devoid of any merit. 10. In view of the above, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 21st July, 2026 Tarun Singh