2026:HHC:31832 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4387 of 2019 Decided on: 31 .07 .2026 Anuranjan … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ___________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No. 3. : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(I) That the respondent No.3 may be directed to sponsor name of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Assistant Chemist (Post code 638) under Scheduled Caste (Unreserved) category being at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting panel prepared by it for the post concerned. (II) That, thereafter, respondent No.2 may be directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner being at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting panel, for the post of Assistant Chemist, (post code 638) as advertised vide annexure P-1). 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:31832 (III) That the respondents may be directed not to initiate fresh selection for the post in question which has fallen vacant after resignation of said Shri Vipan Kumar.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in terms of advertisement Annexure P-3 dated 16.9.2017, a process was initiated to fill up certain posts of Assistant Chemists. The final result of the said selection post was declared on 12.7.2019. In terms of the advertisement, a copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3, in all 33 posts of Assistant Chemist, on contract basis, were advertised in the Department of Irrigation and Public Health (IPH). These included seven posts under the category of SC (Unreserved}. The petitioner participated in the process under the said category. The contention of the petitioner is that in terms of Annexure P-6, which is the category-wise/merit-wise waiting panel for the post of Assistant Chemists, his name was at Sr. No.1 under the category of SC {Unreserved}. His grievance is that one of the selected candidates, namely, Sh. Vipan Kumar, after having joined the post, left the same and thereafter, despite the fact that the petitioner was at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list, the post has not been offered to him. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is apparent and evident from Annexure P-6 that the petitioner was at 3 2026:HHC:31832 Sr. No. 1 as far as the waiting list of Scheduled Caste {Unreserved} category candidates is concerned. He submitted that as one of the candidates, namely, Sh. Vipan Kumar, after having been offered appointment, joined and thereafter, left the job, the vacancy ought to have been offered to the petitioner on the basis of his merit in terms whereof he was at Sr. No. 1 in the wait panel of SC {Unreserved}. He submitted that the act of the respondents of not doing so, is arbitrary and discriminatory. 4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General and and Mr. Angrez Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing for respondents submitted that there is no merit in the present petition. They submitted that it is settled law that a wait panel candidate can be offered appointment only if the candidate, who has been offered appointment, does not join the post. They submitted that if a candidate, who has been offered appointment, joins the post, then the same amounts to exhausting the post. Thereafter, if the candidate resigns or otherwise does not turn up, the same is not to be offered to the next in line, but is to be construed to be an exhausted post and a fresh process has to be initiated for filling the said post. 5. Having heard the respective submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that 4 2026:HHC:31832 indeed there is no merit in this petition. 6. It is settled law that a waiting panel candidate only has a right of consideration provided the candidate, who has been offered appointment on merit, does not join the post. Further, a waiting panel candidate has a right to seek appointment under these circumstances only during the currency/during the life of the waiting panel. Once a candidate who has been offered appointment joins the post and if thereafter, said candidate leaves the post for any reason whatsoever, a waiting panel candidate has no right to seek appointment against the said post. The post under these circumstances is construed to have been exhausted for all intents and purposes and thereafter, it has to be filled in afresh by way of fresh process of recruitment. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudesh Kumar Goyal vs. State of Haryana and others, (2023) 10 Supreme Court Cases 54, in similar circumstances, has been pleased to hold that if one selected candidate joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy, which cannot be filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process. 8. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Dharmender Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others, 2020 SCC OnLine HP 1059, relying upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to 5 2026:HHC:31832 therein, has been pleased to hold that a waiting list prepared in an examination conducted by the Commission does not furnish a source of recruitment. It is operative only for the contingency that if any of the selected candidates do not join, then the person from the waiting list may be pushed up and be appointed in the vacancy so caused. Hon’ble Division Bench also held that once the appointments are made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and those who are placed below the last appointee, cannot claim appointment against the posts which subsequently become available. 9. Herein, the petitioner is claiming a post which subsequently became available on account of resignation of Sh. Vipan Kumar. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudesh Kumar Goyal’s case (supra), has held that the vacancy which arises on account of the resignation is to be construed a fresh vacancy and the same cannot be filled without issuing a proper advertisement and following a fresh selection process. 10. Therefore, in light of the said settled legal position, obviously, the relief being prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. 11. Therefore, in light of above discussion, as this Court finds no merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. 6 2026:HHC:31832 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 31 , 2026 (narender)