( 2026:HHC:38725 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 6886 of 2014. Decided on : 11 th September , 2026 Mukesh Shukla ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General for respondents-State. Mr. Nishant Khidtta, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Petitioner seeks to assail order dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure P-6), whereunder no irregularity was found in the impugned selection process and interview conducted on 01.10.2007 selecting respondent No.6 as Lecturer (Jyotish). 2. Heard and considered the case file. 2(i). Respondents conducted interview on 01.10.2007 for engaging Lecturer in the subject of Jyotish in respondent No. 4-college. Respondent No. 6 was selected as Lecturer (Jyotish) for the session 2007– 2008. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:38725 ) 2(ii). Selection of respondent No. 6 as Lecturer (Parents Teacher Association) (PTA) in respondent No. 4- college was challenged by the petitioner by preferring a complaint before Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The said authority, vide order dated 06.01.2009, applied latest norms (2008) and on that basis reassessed the marks of petitioner and respondent No. 6. By applying the latest norms, the Additional Deputy Commissioner found that petitioner had scored higher marks than respondent No. 6. In this view of the matter, appointment of respondent No. 6 was set aside and recommendation was made for appointing the petitioner. 2(iii). Respondent No. 6 preferred appeal against the aforesaid order before the Divisional Commissioner. The concerned authority vide order dated 29.11.2010 held that in view of order passed in CWP No. 1937/2009, dated 22.04.2010, the matter was required to be decided by the inquiry committee set up by the Director Higher Education. The concerned authority was, therefore, directed to decide the matter in terms of the aforesaid order. It appears that directions issued by the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 29.11.2010 were not complied with. With this grievance, petitioner instituted CWP No. 4237 of 2013. The said writ 3 ( 2026:HHC:38725 ) petition was decided on 21.11.2013 with directions to implement the order of the Divisional Commissioner within six weeks. 2(iv) It was on 12.08.2014 that the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, who was the Chairman of the committee constituted for the disposal of complaints, decided the complaint/representation, inter alia holding therein that appointment of the candidates pursuant to the interview held on 01.10.2007 was made prior to the formulation of PTA policy/guidelines framed in the month of May, 2008. Therefore, the said criteria, which was framed later in point of time, could not have been applied to the selection process conducted on 01.10.2007; That it was in absence of any specific guidelines/PTA policy, the Parent Teacher Association of the concerned college had devised its own criteria for selection of Lecturer to be engaged on Parent Teacher Association basis. The same criteria was equally applied to the petitioner as also respondent No. 6. On the basis of norms followed uniformly by the Parent Teacher Association of the concerned college, the candidates, viz. petitioner and respondent No. 6, were awarded marks, whereunder petitioner scored 70.77 and respondent No. 6 scored 72.28 marks. Marks scored by respondent No. 6 were more than that of the 4 ( 2026:HHC:38725 ) petitioner. Accordingly, respondent No. 6 was justly appointed under the PTA policy. Petitioner feels aggrieved against this order. 3. The above observation of the Deputy Commissioner is in consonance with Raksha Devi vs. State of H.P. and others2, holding therein that the policy which ruled the field at the time of submission of application has to be made applicable for considering the eligibility as also for assessment. To the similar effect is the ratio of Koyal Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors.3 wherein in context of applying selection criteria notified on 27.05.2008 (as is involved in the instant petition) to selection propcess held prior in time, it was held as under: “……..Having held so, if the PTA has followed a rational and objective criteria the Committee cannot sit in judgement over the decision of the PTA and cannot retrospectively apply the guidelines and criteria laid down vide notification dated 27th May, 2008, especially to those posts selection wherefrom were made on the basis of interview held much prior to issuance of such notification. ………………………………………………………. ………………………………………………………... ……….We would like to clarify that we are not saying that the criteria now laid down by the State is not a valid criteria. However, we also cannot say that the criteria laid down by the PTA was an arbitrary or irrational criteria. The criteria now laid down cannot apply with retrospective effect. We are of the considered view that the PTA made the appointments strictly on the basis of merit as per 2CWP No. 1096 of 2010, decided along with connected matters on 17.05.2010 3 CWP No. 2632 of 208, decided on 28.07.2009. 5 ( 2026:HHC:38725 ) the criteria laid down by it. The Committee could not have substituted the criteria by the formula now laid down much after the interviews were held.” Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner next endeavored to submit that the order was required to be passed by the committee constituted under notification issued on 19.04.2008, whereas the impugned order has been passed by the Chairman of the committee. As has been observed in paras supra, notification issued on 19.04.2008 would not be applicable to the selection process conducted prior to the issuance of said notification. The aforesaid argument does not hold substance. Furthermore, the petitioner has not been able to point out any error in assessment of merit in the impugned order on the basis of criteria adopted by the Parent Teacher Association, whereunder the petitioner had scored less marks than respondent No. 6. Therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioner by the rejection of his case under the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 6, at this stage pointed out that respondent No.6 has since been selected as Lecturer (Jyotish), Sanskrit College Cadre, on contract basis through State Public Service Commission vide notification dated 19.09.2012. 6 ( 2026:HHC:38725 ) 4. In view of above, the impugned order dated 12.08.2014 does not require to be interfered with. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 11th September, 2026. (jai)