IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.1080 of 2015 Decided on: 19.09.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Dr. Rajesh Kumar Shandil ....Petitioner Versus UOI and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shaym Singh Chauhan, Central Government Counsel. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Heard and considered the case file. 2. A notice was issued by respondent No. 2 for holding walk-in interview for post of Research Associate in a specific project. The walk-in interview was to be held on 01.10.2014 under a scheme, duration of which was up to 31.03.2015. Qualifications, both essential and desirable, for the participating candidates were laid down in the notice. Petitioner appeared in the walk-in interview. The respondents did not declare the result, rather issued another notice on 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - 14.12.2014 for holding walk-in interview again for the temporary and Co-terminus based post of Research Associate on 06.02.2015. The notice also delineated essential and desirable qualifications which were different from the ones prescribed in the previous notice. At that stage, petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to declare the result of the interviews conducted on 01.10.2014. Vide order dated 04.02.2015, subject to outcome of the writ petition, petitioner was permitted to participate in the interviews scheduled to be held on 06.02.2015 in terms of the walk-in interview notice dated 14.12.2014. 3. Alongwith the rejoinder, petitioner has placed on record the result of selection process pursuant to the walk-in interviews conducted by the respondents on 01.10.2014, statedly obtained under Right to Information Act. In terms of this result, name of the petitioner had been recommended for selection at Sr. No. 1 for the post of Research Associate. 4. The respondents in their reply have categorically stated that while conducting walk-in interviews on 01.10.2014, the requisite criteria had not been followed. A - 3 - person in possession of only M.Sc. degree was allowed to participate in the interview; Applicable guidelines laying down essential qualifications criteria for the post of Research Associate had not been followed while stipulating the qualification criteria in the notice, in terms of which walk-in interviews were conducted on 01.10.2014; For this reason, the competent authority did not approve the recommendations of the selection committee based upon the walk-in interviews conducted on 01.10.2014; Accordingly, the post was re-advertised on 14.12.2014, whereunder walk- in-interviews were conducted again on 06.02.2015 in which petitioner had also participated, but he was not selected in view of his performance. In view of the reasons assigned by the respondents, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned action. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge September 19,2026 R.Atal