2026:HHC:11547 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No.364 of 2019 Decided on :09.04.2026 _____________________________________________________________ Nand Lal ...Petitioner Versus State of HP and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner: Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State. Name of respondent No.4 stands deleted. Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Respondent No.6 already ex-parte. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Annexure P-4 to the extent it pertains to the appointment of respondent no.4, 5 & 6. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent authorities not to implement Annexure P-4 to the extent it pertains to the appointment of respondent no. 4, 5 & 6. (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to give appointment to the present 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:11547 petitioner against the post of a sub-inspector.” 2. The facts which emerge from the pleadings are that the respondents-State had called applications from the candidates, who desired to be appointed as Sub-Inspector and Police Constable, through the Directorate of Sainik Welfare Himachal Pradesh at Hamirpur (Ex-Servicemen Employment Cell). The candidates were called in accordance with their seniority of registration and since the petitioner was also Ex-Servicemen, he too, applied for both the posts of Sub-Inspector and Constable. The petitioner had appeared in the interview conducted on 29.01.2009 and the result was declared in the month of August, 2009. The petitioner was offered the post of Police Constable in September, 2009, who joined in pursuance of the said recommendations. The respondents had prescribed the criteria for selection as evident from a perusal of check list issued before conducting the interview. The details of marks for merit were prescribed as under :- SERVICE 25 CHARACTER 5 CAUSE OF DISCHARGE 5 TRADE 5 SENIORITY OF REGN 10 TOTAL 50 (Max 25 marks) Exemp = 5 Very good = 4 Good = 3 Pension = 5 Reserve = 5 Demoblised = 5 Medical Boarded out = 5 On request = 2 Class-I = 55 Class-II = 4 Class-III = 3 Half mark per month Max Marks= 6, year of less than two year = 8, two or more years = 10 3 2026:HHC:11547 3. The petitioner in the interview had scored 37 marks, as evident from the list of candidates called for the posts of Sub-Inspector and Police Constable, on the basis of education qualification of BA and above (Annexure P-2), in which the name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 59 (at page No. 14) and private respondents No. 4 to 6 had scored 35 marks each and their names figure at Pages No. 19 (Sr. No. 8), 25 (Sr. No. 8) and 14 (Sr. No. 54), respectively. The petitioner came to know about the said factum after joining on the post of Constable, when he sought information under Right to Information Act, qua his having scored more marks as per the criteria fixed by the respondents, and thus approached this Court by contending that the action on the part of the respondents, not to offer him appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, is illegal inasmuch as the less meritorious candidates had been selected and appointed. He has sought direction to the respondents-State to offer him appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. 4. The respondents filed reply to the petition. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have submitted that the posts were distributed amongst the Districts and recruitment was made by the Department on the recommendations of Recruitment 4 2026:HHC:11547 Boards constituted at the Range level. The recruitment to the posts of direct Sub-Inspector has been made on the recommendations of HPSSSB against the direct quota and as per the policy of the State Government, 15% posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen by way of horizontal reservation and the selection of Ex-Servicemen was made by the Ex- Servicemen Cell and not by the Police Department. The names of suitable Ex-Servicemen were sponsored by the Ex- Servicemen Employment Cell and, therefore, they were appointed by the Department after verification of their antecedents and medical examination etc. 5. Respondent No.3 filed separate reply and averred that the petition is not maintainable before this Court, because respondent No.3 had received a requisition from Director General of Police, HP, vide which four posts of general category of Sub-Inspectors for HP Police had been requisitioned. The cut off date was mentioned as 03.07.2009. The break in service between the date of enrollment in the police and the date of discharge from previous Army service shall not exceed 4 years and the cut off date, of the candidates, who retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2009, will be considered for the post of 5 2026:HHC:11547 Sub-Inspector. The interview for the posts of Sub-Inspector and Police Constable were held on 29.01.2010, as per seniority of registration/date of discharge from Army. Respondent No.3 had found four suitable candidates for nominations who had registered their names after the cut- off date i.e. 04.07.2005 and all the four candidates of general category were retired in the year 2005 as well as had got their names registered in the year 2005 and as such, they were senior to the petitioner. It has been averred that the petitioner had retired from Army in the year 2006 and got himself registered in the year 2006 itself and thus being junior to the above four nominated candidates, the question to nominate him as Sub-Inspector did not arise. 6. Respondent No.5 filed reply and averred that the petition is not maintainable and the selection has been carried out strictly in accordance with the Rules. The petitioner has no locus to challenge his appointment on account of his own acts, deeds and acquiescence. Further the petitioner has no enforceable cause of action. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied 6 2026:HHC:11547 for both the posts of Sub-Inspector as well as Police Constable and further he was interviewed on 29.01.2010 for both posts. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had got himself registered with the Ex-Servicemen Cell after his discharge from Army in 2006 itself. It is also not in dispute that before conducting the interview, the respondents had fixed the criteria for awarding marks to the candidates, to be selected. It is also not in dispute that as per the criteria laid down by the respondents, only the candidature of those candidates, who had retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2009, were to be considered for the post of Sub- Inspector and admittedly, the petitioner had retired in the year 2006. 9. As per reply filed by respondent No.3, it is crystal clear that only those Ex-Servicemen were to be considered for the posts of Sub-Inspector who had retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2009 and their discharge from previous service would not exceed 4 years, which was the cut-off date fixed. As per this, only the candidature of those candidates, who had retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2009, was to be considered for the post of Sub- Inspector. The plea taken by respondent No.3 in the reply, 7 2026:HHC:11547 that since the petitioner had retired from the Army in the year 2006 and had registered his name in the year 2006 itself and there were four candidates already available, who had retired from Army in 2005 and got their names registered in the year 2005, cannot be countenanced once the petitioner was eligible in all four and had secured more marks than the selected candidates. It was not the criteria that firstly the candidates of earlier year had to be selected or given preference. The respondents have not disputed that the petitioner had scored more marks than the selected candidates. The plea taken by the respondents that once there were four candidates of the year 2005, name of the petitioner was not considered, who had retired in the year 2006 is illogical for the reason that on the one hand, it is specific stand taken by them that only those candidates were to be considered who retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 and 03.07.2009; and secondly, as per the criteria fixed by them, once the marks were allotted, the petitioner could not have been ignored only for the reason that he got retired from Army in 2006 and registered himself in 2006 and there were four candidates available for the year 2005. If this is accepted, the very purpose of fixing the 8 2026:HHC:11547 criteria looses its significance and becomes redundant. As already noted above, it was not the criteria that preference has to be given to persons who retired earlier and got registered themselves. 10. Admittedly, the petitioner has scored more marks than the persons, who were recommended for the appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. Once the criteria was fixed by the respondents and as per that criteria, the petitioner had scored more marks, the action on the part of the respondents not to recommend the name of the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector is highly unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional and is totally in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the purpose of conducting the interview and prescribing the criteria looses its efficacy. In case the reply filed is accepted, wherein it has been stated that the name of the petitioner was not recommended only for the reason that he had retired in 2006 and registered his name in 2006 itself, the prescribing criteria looses its significance. The criteria fixed do not prescribe that the seniority has to be followed while making recommendations. In case such plea is accepted, then the reply filed by the respondents, wherein they have 9 2026:HHC:11547 mentioned the criteria of considering only the candidates, who retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2009, is of no use. 11. On the one hand, respondent No.3 had prescribed the criteria of only considering the candidates, who had got retired from Army w.e.f. 04.07.2005 to 03.07.2006 and on the other hand, the petitioner being eligible, had retired in 2006, is totally with a view to favour other persons. 12. Though this Court could have quashed the appointment of private respondents, but it has refrained from doing so, keeping in view the fact that there is no fault on their part, when their names were recommended and further considering the fact that they were offered appointment in 2010, at a time when petitioner’s claim could not be adjudicated. It is settled law that if there is no misrepresentation made by the persons at the time of offering them appointment, their appointments cannot be set at knot. Therefore, without disturbing the appointments of the private respondents, the action on the part of respondents to not sponsor the name of the petitioner for appointment as Sub-Inspector, is totally illegal, arbitrary 10 2026:HHC:11547 and as such untenable in law. 13. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the respondents/competent authority without disturbing the appointments of the private respondents is directed to, offer the appointment to the petitioner for the post of Sub- Inspector with all consequential benefits from the date when private respondents were offered the appointment and be shown above them in the seniority list, since he had scored more marks than them. If there was no post lying vacant, supernumerary post be created. In case the petitioner is not offered the appointment within three months from today, the respondents shall pay the arrears to him along with interest @6% from the date of the institution of the petition till its payment. However, there shall be no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 09 th April , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge