2026:HHC:31045 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.2308 of 2022 Decided on: 28.07.2026 Smt. Neelam Devi … Petitioner Versus The State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rahul Thakur, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Sanjeev K. Motta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 8. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That the non-inclusion/non-selection by the i) respondent No. 3 of the petitioner to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy), in the Department of Health Services, State of H.P., vide notification dated 30.03.2022, Annexure P-1. may kindly be declared as unjust, illegal, in violation of Articles 14,16, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the selection criteria as set out by the respondent No.1 in the proforma inviting applications from interested candidates and as such, quashed and set aside to that extent and the petitioner held selected to the post by holding her entitled to additional 2.50 marks on the basis of her work 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31045 experience. ii) That the petitioner may kindly be held entitled to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) with effect from the date the other candidates in the select list, Annexure P-1. with all consequential benefits of pay, seniority etc. etc.” 2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that vide Annexure P-3, the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission advertised various posts, including the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) in the Health and Family Welfare Department. The essential qualifications etc. for the posts in issue were prescribed under Code 894, which read as under: 894 Pharmacist (Allopathy) i) 10 plus 2 in Science from a recognized Board of School Education. ii) Degree or Diploma in Pharmacy from a recognized University or an Institution duly recognized by the Central/State Government. iii) Must be registered with the Pharmacy Council of the concerned State/Central Government. Not-withstanding, the provision contained in sub-rule a (i) supra the candidates who have done diploma in Pharmacy prior to 12.9.2001 and are matriculates shall not be rendered ineligible. Note: A candidate shall be eligible for appointment of this post, if, he/she has passed Matriculation and 10+2 from any School/Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh. Provided this condition shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis In addition, the mode of selection for the posts in issue was prescribed as a written test, which was to comprise of 85 marks and evaluation of 15 marks was to be done as per the criteria which was prescribed under Part-2 of the head "Mode of Selection". This also 3 2026:HHC:31045 included 2.5 marks for experience up to a maximum of 5 years in Government/Semi-Government Organizations relating to the post applied for, i.e., 0.5 mark only for each completed year. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that being eligible, she applied for the post in issue, yet, on account of the non-grant of 2.5 marks under the Head of ‘experience’, she has been denied appointment to the post in issue. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, after she had applied for the post in issue, was allowed to participate in the selection process, that is, the written test, etc. He submitted that when the documents were verified by the Authorities, the petitioner also produced the experience certificate, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-12, yet, the marks of experience have been arbitrarily denied to her, as a result whereof, her name has not been recommended by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment against the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy), under the Scheduled Caste Category. No other point was urged by him. 5. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General, as also learned Counsel appearing for the Staff Selection Commission and learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner. They stated that in terms of the advertisement, the date of determining 4 2026:HHC:31045 eligibility of the candidate in respect of essential qualifications and experience, if any, was the closing date for submission of online recruitment application form, which was 09.05.2021. They submitted that the petitioner did not append any experience certificate along with the application form, and in fact, Annexure P-12 appended with the petition itself having been issued on 01.12.2021 is demonstrative of the fact that the same was procured by the petitioner after the date of determining eligibility mentioned in the advertisement, i.e., 09.05.2021. Learned Counsel appearing for the Commission in particular submitted that it is the categorical stand of the Commission that no experience certificate whatsoever was ever made available to the Commission by the petitioner even at the time of the evaluation of her documents, etc. 6. To counter this, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is a matter of fact that such a certificate was not uploaded alongwith the application form, but subsequently, it was made available for the scrutiny of the Authority on the date of evaluation, but they discarded it on the ground that it has been issued by a private Firm. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as also the documents appendedtherewith. 8. The grievance of the petitioner is limited and is confined 5 2026:HHC:31045 to the fact that for the purpose of determining her eligibility for appointment against the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy), no marks have been awarded to her under the head ‘experience’, in terms of Experience Certificate (Annexure P-12). 9. A perusal of Annexure P-3, which is the advertisement to which the petitioner had responded, demonstrates that this advertisement was issued on 08.04.2021. The opening date for submission of online recruitment application was 10.04.2021 and the closing date for submission of online recruitment applications was 09.05.2021, till 11:59 p.m. It was further mentioned in the advertisement that the date for determining eligibility of all candidates in respect of essential qualifications and experience, if any, etc., shall be the prescribed closing date for submission of online recruitment application form, i.e. 09.05.2021. 10. As it is not in dispute that the petitioner had not submitted any Experience Certificate at the time when she applied for the post in issue, therefore, obviously there was nothing with the Recruiting Agency to determine the eligibility of the petitioner in respect of experience, i.e. marks if any, which could have been allotted to the petitioner on the strength of experience. Not only this, documents appended with the petition demonstrate that the petitioner was invited to participate in the examination vide Annexure P-13 and the date of examination was 22.08.2021. On the 6 2026:HHC:31045 other hand, the Experience Certificate on which the petitioner is relying upon, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-12, is dated 01.12.2021. The above demonstrates that this Experience Certificate was obtained by the petitioner not only after the closing date of submission of online recruitment application, but also after she appeared in the written examination which was held on 22.08.2021. Why so?, could not be satisfactorily explained by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 11. Otherwise also, what is appended with the petition as Annexure P-12 is a No Objection Certificate and not an experience certificate per se. Dehors this fact, even if it is to be assumed that the same is an Experience Certificate, then if others could have provided the Experience Certificates to the Commission in time, nothing prevented the petitioner from doing the needful in terms of the advertisement. The only inference which can be drawn from the above is that the petitioner was not in possession of any Experience Certificate as on the closing date for submission of online recruitment application. Therefore, as the date of determining eligibility of a candidate in respect of experience was the closing date for submission of online recruitment application, in the absence of there being any certificate on record/uploaded with the online recruitment application, there was nothing with the Recruiting Agency to assess the marks to be awarded, if any, to the petitioner 7 2026:HHC:31045 under the Head of ‘experience’. 12. In fact, a perusal of the reply filed by the Commission demonstrates that in Para 6(b) and (c), there is a categorical averment made therein that on the date of evaluation, although the petitioner in her self-assessment sheet had written about experience certificate and added 2.5 marks under the head ‘experience’ up to maximum 5 years in government/semi-government organization related to the post applied, but she had not produced any experience certificate as alleged in the petition during evaluation and therefore, no marks were given to the petitioner under this head. 13. Now, there is no separate rejoinder filed to this reply of the Commission by the petitioner, but a joint rejoinder has been filed to the replies filed by the respondents and it is inter alia mentioned in the rejoinder that the petitioner had added 2.5 marks under the head ‘experience’ in the Self-Assessment Sheet, for the reason that the petitioner had the requisite experience and documents to that effect stood duly submitted alongwith other credentials. This averment made in the rejoinder, if not false, is incorrect. It is not understood as to how a so-called Experience Certificate (Annexure P-12) could have been submitted by the petitioner alongwith other credentials in light of the fact that credentials were to be uploaded latest by 09.04.2021 and Annexure P-12 itself is dated 01.12.2021. Otherwise also, whether or not this particular certificate was made 8 2026:HHC:31045 available for scrutiny of the authority at the time of evaluation is a disputed question of fact, as one party is admitting it and the other party is denying it, which cannot be decided by this Court under writ jurisdiction. 14. Accordingly, in the light of above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 28, 2026 (Rishi)