2026:HHC:40202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12345 of 2025 Decided on: 21st September, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ruby Attri …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Gunjan Sharma and Mr. Arsh Chauhan, Advocates. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Respondents No.3 and 4 ex-parte. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge At the final stage of selection process for the post of Junior Auditor, petitioner’s candidature was turned down by respondent No.2. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:40202 2. The case:- 2(i). Respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 10.02.2024 inviting online recruitment applications from desirous and eligible candidates for filling up 37 posts of Junior Auditor, Class-III (on contract basis). Out of these 37 posts, 16 were meant for Unreserved category and 09 for Scheduled Caste (SC) category candidates of the State of Himachal Pradesh. In terms of Clause 6 of the advertisement, benefit of reservation was admissible only to the candidates, who were bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh in their respective categories:- “6. The benefit of reservation for various post(s) will be admissible only to the candidates, who are Bonafide residents of Himachal Pradesh in respect of categories, vi. Scheduled Caste (S.C.), Scheduled Tribe (S.T.), Other Backward Classes (O.B.C.), Economically Weaker Section (E.W.S.), Ex. Servicemen, Ward of Ex. Servicemen, Ward of Freedom Fighter (W.F.F.) and Persons with benchmark Disabilities (Loco motor Disabled/Visually Impaired/Hearing Impaired) etc.” 2(ii). As per Clause 7 of the advertisement, reserved category candidates belonging to other States were to be treated as General category candidates. Benefit of reservation and fee concession was not admissible to such candidates. Clause 2 of eligibility conditions of the aforesaid advertisement is also required to be taken note of as this clause, inter alia, provided shifting of reserved category 3 2026:HHC:40202 candidates to General category based upon their merit. In terms of this clause, only such of the reserved category candidates falling under vertical reservation, who are selected on the same standard as applied to General candidates, would not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies. Clause 2 reads as under:- “2. The reserved category candidates falling under vertical reservation i.e. S.C./S.T./O.B.C./E.W.S. who are appointed on their own merit and not owing to reservation will not be adjusted against reserved points and they will be adjusted against unreserved points. The S.C./S.T. candidate appointed on their own merit and adjusted against unreserved points will retain their status of S.C./S.T. and will be eligible to get benefit of reservation in future/further promotions, if any. However, only such S.C./S.T./O.B.C./E.W.S. candidates falling under vertical reservation who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied at any stage of selection process in selecting S.C. /S.T./O.B.C./E.W.S. candidates, for example in the age-limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination (screening test /written examination), extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category, candidates etc., the S.C. / S.T. / O.B.C./ E.W.S. candidates are, to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies in accordance with the instructions of the Government (in the Department of Personnel) issued vide letter No. PER(AP)-C-E(I)-2/2001 dated 12th November, 2014. The candidates belonging to reserved categories falling under horizontal reservation i.e. Ex-servicemen/Wards of Ex-servicemen, Children/Grand Children of Freedom Fighters (W.F.F.), Persons with Benchmark Disabilities and Distinguished Sportspersons who acquire merit/ marks on at par with the purely general candidates shall not be selected/appointed against general/ 4 2026:HHC:40202 unreserved posts and will be adjusted against the post reserved for respective category falling under horizontal reservation. However, it does not debar or preclude a candidate falling under vertical/horizontal reservation from applying and competing for any unreserved post subject to his/her eligibility and clearing the written test/personality test successfully without any relaxation.” 2(iii). Petitioner participated in the selection process as a Scheduled Caste category candidate. Her candidature was turned down by respondent No.2 for non-possession of SC certificate from the State of Himachal Pradesh. Pertinently, petitioner's candidature was turned down at the stage of document verification that was held on 14 and 15th February, 2025. 2(iv). Petitioner preferred CWP No.2406 of 2025. During hearing of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner placed on record copy of the aforesaid writ petition, wherein following substantive reliefs were prayed for:- “1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction commanding respondent to accept the Schedule Caste Certificate, Annexure P-4, produced by her at the time of document verification as valid and legal to consider her candidature for the post of Junior Auditor under Schedule Caste category. 2. Direct respondent to consider alternative means of verification of the Petitioner's Scheduled Caste status, in light of the Notifications P-6 and P-7, issued by the Government of India, which included the Petitioner's caste within the Scheduled Caste category, and to 5 2026:HHC:40202 ensure that the Petitioner is not unfairly deprived of her right to equal opportunity in public employment. 3. It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order, directing respondent not to bar or disqualify the petitioner on the basis of Schedule Caste Certificate, Ann. P-4.” Since the reliefs claimed for by the petitioner could not have been granted to her in light of clauses of the advertisement, learned counsel for the petitioner had sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition at an appropriate stage in accordance with law. Accordingly, under order dated 24.07.2025, the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh petition. 2(v). Respondents issued appointment orders on 17.05.2025 in favour of 36 candidates. Petitioner's name did not figure therein, even though, as per the combined merit list prepared by the respondents for the post of Junior Auditor, her name figured at Sr. No.15 on the basis of her merit with 66.00 marks in Paper-I and 59.25 marks in Paper-II. As noted earlier, there were 16 posts meant for Unreserved category. 2(vi). Feeling aggrieved against the action of respondent No.2 in not recommending her name for appointment to the post of Junior Auditor against 6 2026:HHC:40202 Unreserved category, petitioner instituted this writ petition seeking following substantive reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, directing the Respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Junior Auditor, Class-III, advertised vide Advertisement No.3/2-2024 dated 10.02.2024 (Annexure P-1), under the unreserved (general) category, based on her 15th position in the combined merit list (Annexure P-4), and appoint her to the said post forthwith; b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, quashing the appointment order dated 17.05.2025 (Annexure P-5), to the extent it excludes the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates.” 3. Respondent No.2 has filed reply to the writ petition. The entire emphasis in the reply is that in view of petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste category in the State of Punjab, her candidature could not have been considered as Scheduled Caste of Himachal Pradesh for the nine posts reserved for SC category candidates of the State of Himachal Pradesh. Be that as it may. 4. The respondents in their reply have not disputed the fact that petitioner in order of merit was placed at Sr. No.15 amongst the General/Unreserved category. Since there were 16 posts meant for this category, in view of Clause 7 and Note 2 of eligibility conditions, name of the petitioner was required to be considered under General category. 7 2026:HHC:40202 In Saurav Yadav and others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others2, Hon’ble Apex Court explaining the concept of vertical and horizontal reservation, held that quota provided for social groups are characterized as vertical reservation, whereas reservation in favour of women, handicapped, ex servicemen etc. are horizontal reservation. Vertical reservation is sanctioned explicitly by Article 16(4) of the Constitution while horizontal reservation has evolved through process of permissible classification under Articles 14, 16(1) and 15(3). The contention raised there that after vertical reservations are provided for, at the stage of accommodating candidates for effecting horizontal reservation, reserved category candidates can only be adjusted against their categories and not against open or general category, was rejected. It was held that while making adjustment for horizontal reservation in open or general category seats, selection of less meritorious candidates was impermissible. Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the well settled legal position that the candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in ‘Open or General category’. 2 (2021) 4 SCC 542 8 2026:HHC:40202 Adoption of same principle by the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand and Gujarat while dealing with horizontal reservation (termed as ‘first view’ in paras 26-27 of the judgment) was approved in para 40 of the judgment. Following paras from the judgment summarize the issue:- “65. In view of these clear decisions, it is too late in the day for the respondent State to contend that women candidates who are entitled to benefit of social category reservations, cannot fill open category vacancies. The said view is starkly exposed as misconceived, because it would result in such women candidates with less merit (in the open category) being selected, and those with more merit than such selected candidates, (in the social/vertical reservation category) being left out of selection. 66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.” Reiterating the law laid down in Saurav Yadav’s2 case, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharat Sanchar 9 2026:HHC:40202 Nigam Limited and another Versus Sandeep Choudhary and others3 held as under:- “24. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in another recent decision of this Court in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati. By the said decision, it is reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in unreserved categories. It is further observed that held that even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates. It is further observed that the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit and position in the merit list entitles them to do so.” There appears to be a tie between the petitioner and one Sh. Rajesh Kapoor insofar as their marks obtained in Paper-II are concerned, as both have scored 59.25 marks. In that situation, sub-note No.(ii) of Note-II of Clause J of the advertisement would get attracted, which reads as under:- “(ii) Final order of merit shall be determined in accordance with highest marks secured in the Paper-II. No candidate securing zero or negative marks in Paper-II shall form part of the merit list. In case the marks of two or more candidates are equal, then the candidate securing more marks in Paper-I will be placed above the candidate securing less marks in the same. In case the marks of Paper-I are also equal, then the candidate who is older in age will be placed above the candidate younger in age. In case the age is also same then the 3 (2022) 11 SCC 779 10 2026:HHC:40202 candidate having more marks in the essential qualification examination will be placed above the candidate having less marks.” Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 has not disputed that by application of Note-II(ii), it is the petitioner, who will take precedence over Sh. Rajesh Kapoor, as she had scored more marks in Paper-I than Sh. Rajesh Kapoor. Keeping the aforesaid factors in view, following order was passed in this matter on 30.07.2025:- “Petitioner herein at first instance applied for the post of Junior Auditor in State Audit Department for seat reserved under SC category and admittedly, he qualified the exam and would have made place for him qua the seat reserved for SC category, but since her SC Certificate was found invalid, her candidature was rejected. Subsequently, Public Service Commission prepared combined merit list, wherein petitioner figured at serial No.15. Precise claim of the petitioner is that even though her candidature under SC Category was rejected, but since she was able to find place at serial No. 15 of combined merit list, her candidature should have been considered under Unreserved Category in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Appex Court in Saurav Yadav And Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 542. Though at this stage, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, attempted to argue that once selection process stands culminated, present petition is not maintainable, but having taken note of facts, as detailed hereinabove, coupled with the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Suraj Yadav (supra), this Court finds it necessary to call upon respondent No. 2 to file short reply/affidavit, specifically stating therein that why name of the petitioner was not considered for seat reserved under General Category, especially when her name figures at 11 2026:HHC:40202 serial No. 15 of combined merit list prepared by Public Service Commission. List on 13.08.2025.” Following order came to be passed in this matter on 13.05.2026:- “In light of the order that was passed by the Court on 07.04.2026, learned Additional Advocate General has handed over to the Court instructions dated 29.04.2026, received from the Director, H.P. State Audit Department, Shimla, relevant portion of which reads as under:- “I am to refer to your office letter No.CWP 12345/2025, dated 08.04.2026 on the subject cited above vide which it has been intimated that the above mentioned case was listed before the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh on 07.04.2026, on which date the Hon'ble High Court has passed an order, the operational part of which is reproduced hereunder:- “This Court is of the considered view that before any such order is passed by the Court, let learned Additional Advocate General have instructions as to whether there is a post of Junior Auditor Class-III available in the State Audit Department belonging to general category or not. Instructions be obtained by next date of hearing.” In this context, it is apprised that the post of Junior Auditor, Class-III belonging to general category is available in the H.P. State Audit Department. You are therefore, requested to intimate the Hon'ble High Court in this regard accordingly, please.” Thus, in terms of the instructions, post of Junior Auditor, Class-III, belonging to general category is available in the H.P. State Audit Department. In the backdrop of said instructions, learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions as to why cannot the petitioner be adjusted against said 12 2026:HHC:40202 post prospectively, without any kind of claim whatsoever for the intervening period. List on 28.05.2026. Instructions by the next date.” The above was followed by another order passed on 24.06.2026 as under:- “Learned Counsel for the respondent- Commission has informed the Court that the Commission has recommended candidates against all the vacancies advertised for the post of Junior Auditor, vide recommendation letter dated 29.03.2025. Recommendations have also been made by way of replacement against non-joining of the candidates vide letter dated 04.12.2025. He submitted that if any post still remains unfilled or vacant on account of non-joining of the recommended candidate, then this information can be provided by the Department concerned. Learned Counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of the Court to order dated 13.05.2026 submitted that it stands recorded in the said order that one post of Junior Auditor (Class-III) belonging to General Category is available in the H.P. State Audit Department. Before the Court proceeds further, let learned Additional Advocate General inform the Court as to whether vacant post of Junior Auditor (Class-III) was also included in the requisition that was placed by the Department to the Public Service Commission which is the subject matter of the present writ petition or not. Let needful be done by the next date. List on 17.07.2026.” Under order dated 17.07.2026, the respondent- Department was directed not to fill up the vacant post of Junior Auditor without the leave of the Court. 13 2026:HHC:40202 5. Since one post of Junior Auditor is lying vacant, and patent injustice has been caused to the petitioner by the action of respondent No.2 in not considering her candidature against the General category post in terms of applicable clauses of the advertisement as also keeping in view the admitted factual position that petitioner is placed at Sr. No.15 in the General category in terms of her own merit, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner against the vacant post of Junior Auditor on the basis of her merit pursuant to advertisement dated 10.02.2024, within a period of three weeks from today. In case the petitioner accepts the offer of appointment, her seniority and service shall reckon from the date of appointment order to be issued to her within the aforesaid period. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 21, 2026 Judge Mukesh