( 2026:HHC:40946 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 16579/2026 Decided on: 24.09.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vishal Kumar …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Ors. .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners: Mr. Onkar Jairath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anshul Jairath, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, advocate, for respondent No.3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge On 03.03.2026 respondent No.4 gave a timeline to certain identified candidates including respondent No.3 for removing specified defects in their documents/information supplied while applying for the advertised posts terming them as ‘curable defects’. Feeling aggrieved against this action, petitioner instituted this writ petition on 21.09.2026. 2. The case. 2(i) Respondent No. 3-Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Ayog issued an advertisement on 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-2), 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) inviting applications for 12 posts of Group Instructor to be filled up on contract basis. Out of these 12 posts, 2 were meant for candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) Unreserved (UR) categories. The closing date for submission of online recruitment applications was 26.03.2024. The minimum essential qualifications, as per the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules, laid down in the advertisement were as under: - “…2. Minimum Essential Qualifications as per R&P Rules. i) 10th Class pass from a recognized Board of School Education. Provided that the candidate must have passed Middle and Matriculation from any Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh, duly recognized by Central/HP Government. ii) Degree in Technology/Engineering from a recognized University with three years post qualification practical experience in a reputed industrial concern or in a training institute. OR i) Diploma in Technology/Engineering from a recognized University/Board with five years post qualification practical experience in a reputed industrial concern or in a training institute OR ii) ITI (National Trade Certificate/National Apprenticeship Certificate) with eight years post practical experience in a reputed industrial concern or in a training institute.” In order to be eligible, a candidate was also required to have post-qualification practical experience for varying years (as per above provision) in a reputed industrial concern/training institute. 3 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) Clause 16 of the advertisement provided the checklist as under: “16. CHECK LIST: VERIFY THE FOLLOWING BEFORE SUBMITING THE ONLINE RECRUITMENT APPLICATION OR DOCUMENTS/CERTIFICATES: a. That no column is wrongly filled or kept blank, as the information furnished therein would be used to determine the eligibility of candidates. b. That copies of only following documents/certificates are to be provided in support of claims made/information given in the Online Recruitment Application(ORA) at the time of documentation:- i) Matriculation certificate for age proof. ii) Degree/Diploma/ITI certificates along with Marks Sheets of all years in support of Educational Qualifications as prescribed under Essential Qualification column of R&P Rules. The provisional certificate(s) along with marks sheets of all semesters/years. iii) Experience certificate(s) wherever required, the post practical experience shall be considered only if the same is attained after acquiring qualification i.e. Degree Diploma/ITI and should be duly verified counter signed by the concerned Government Authority Departmental Officer. iv ) Caste certificates, if applicable. v) BPL certificates, if applicable. vi) All other certificates, if any required for determining, eligibility etc. as mentioned in mode of selection criteria which so ever applicable to the applicants.” As per Checklist-b(iii), ‘Experience Certificate, wherever required, the post “practical experience shall be 4 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) considered only if the same is attained after acquiring the qualification, i.e., Degree/Diploma/ITI, and should be duly verified/countersigned by the concerned Government Authority/Departmental Officer.’ 2(ii) The petitioner, respondent No. 4 and others applied for the post in question. The petitioner and respondent No. 4 had applied for the post meant for OBC (UR) category. 2(iii) On 03.03.2026 (Annexure P-4), respondent No. 3 issued a public notice informing all concerned that during the document verification conducted on 05.02.2026 for the posts in question, certain shortcomings/discrepancies had been noticed, which were pointed out in the notice against the respective names and roll numbers of the candidates. The candidates were directed to rectify the shortcomings and submit the requisite certificates/information/documents within one week, but not later than 12.03.2026. It was further stipulated that failure to submit the requisite documents within the stipulated time would result in rejection of the candidature without entertaining any further request or representation in that regard. Name of respondent No. 4 figured in the aforesaid notice at serial No. 13. The shortcoming pointed out against his name was that the experience certificate supplied by him had not been verified/countersigned by the concerned authority. The 5 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) relevant portion of the notice dated 03.03.2026 is reproduced hereunder: “NOTICE' It is hereby informed to all concerned that during the Document Verification (DV) conducted on 05.02.2026 for Post Code- 24001 (Group Instructor), certain candidates, were observed. With the due approval of the Hon'ble Aayog, the candidates listed below are hereby directed to rectify the said shortcomings and submit the requisite certificate(s)/information/documents in person within one week, but not later than 12.03.2026. Failure to submit the required documents within the stipulated time shall result in rejection of candidature on account of non-fulfillment of essential qualifications. No further request representation in this regard shall be entertained thereafter….. Sr.No Name of Candidate Roll No Description of Shorcomings in documents etc. Action required by the candidates 13. Pradeep 24001001171 Post qualification practical experience of 03 years (being Degree) as Data Analyst in ASICS Technoligies MMS Divya Diamond Junction Kaveri Hills, Hyderabad w.e.f. 24.08.2015 to 02.04.2019 and as Supervisor w.e.f. May 2012 to May 2015 at United Engineering Corpn Jaladhar is not verified/countersigned by the concerned Government Authority/Departmental Officer Certificates of experience required to be verified countersigned by the concerned Labour Officer/Labour Inspector. It appears that respondent No.4 availed the above opportunity and removed the pointed deficiency. 2(iv) Respondent No. 3 declared the result on 25.03.2026. Names of the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 did not figure in the list of successful candidates. Their names, however, figured in the waiting panel. Respondent No. 4, with score of 71.50, is at Serial 6 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) No. 1, and name of petitioner, with an identical score appears at Serial No. 2 in the waiting list for the OBC (UR) category. 3. In the instant writ petition, instituted on 19.09.2026, petitioner’s contention is that respondent No. 3 could not have given an opportunity to Respondent No. 4 to rectify the shortcomings in his experience certificate and could not have permitted respondent No. 4 to furnish a countersigned experience certificate by 12.03.2026, when the closing date for submission of the online recruitment applications was 26.03.2024. Substantive relief prayed for by the petitioner reads as under: “That issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to reject the candidature of the Private Respondent and the Petitioner may be considered for appointment to the post of Group Instructor against the post earmarked for the OBC (UR) Category and the Respondents may further be directed to offer the appointment to the Petitioner on the post of Group Instructor with all consequential benefits like arrears, seniority etc.” Pursuant to the notice issued in this writ petition on 22.09.2026, confined to respondents No. 1 to 3, instructions have come forth from respondent No. 3 as also from respondents No. 1 and 2. Instructions dated 24.09.2026 from respondent No. 3 and dated 23.09.2026 from respondents No. 1 and 2 have been placed on record. 7 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, on the basis of the aforesaid instructions dated 24.09.2026, has submitted that the amended R&P Rules dated 05.12.2022, governing the post in question, do not prescribe any requirement that the experience certificate must be countersigned or verified by any authority. Such stipulation existed in the old and unamended R&P Rules dated 04.07.2017, under which the experience was required to be acquired in a reputed industrial concern registered with the concerned department of the respective State or in a Government/Semi-Government training/teaching institute. This stipulation was done away with by the amendment dated 05.12.2022. The recruitment in question was processed on the basis of the amended R&P Rules dated 05.12.2022. That Clause 16(iii) of the advertisement was general in nature. The expression ‘concerned Government Authority/Departmental Officer’ was neither specifically identified in the advertisement nor do the applicable Recruitment & Promotion Rules prescribe any particular authority such as Labour Officer/Labour Inspector as the authority competent to countersign the certificate. 4. Heard & considered the case file. Clause 2 of the advertisement laid down minimum essential qualifications including the requirement of post qualification practical experience certificate for requisite period. Clause 16 is with the heading ‘Check List’. 8 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) In terms of Clause 16 of the advertisement, the experience certificate, wherever required, was to be considered only if the practical experience was acquired after obtaining the requisite qualification. Another stipulation therein was that the same "should be duly verified/countersigned by the concerned Government Authority/Departmental Officer." I am inclined to agree with the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, as also by the learned Advocate General, that such stipulation was general in nature. Judicial pronouncements have differentiated and distinguished the appointments suffering from procedural deviations with illegal appointments. Appointment made without following every procedural formality may be irregular but it does not become illegal unless it violates statutory provisions or is made without the existence of post [ Re: Pawan Kumar Tiwary & Ors. Vs. Jharkhand State Electricity Board (Now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Limited) and Others.2 Admittedly, requirement of countersigning of the experience certificate was not prescribed in the amended R&P Rules. This was a procedural requirement laid down in the advertisement under ‘the Check List’. The essential criteria was that candidates should be in possession of the requisite 2 2025 SCC Online SC 1751 9 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) experience certificate. Countersigning of such an experience certificate was merely a procedural requirement. In a scenario where the post-degree/diploma experience certificate of a candidate was not countersigned, respondent No. 3 did not commit any error by allowing a defined timeline to such candidate for rectifying this discrepancy as such omission only amounted to a curable discrepancy. It is not that such candidate lacked the essential qualification or failed to satisfy the parameters of essential qualification laid down in clause 2 of the advertisement. Granting a fixed timeline for removal of discrepancies in an already existing certificate was justiciable action of respondent No. 3 in larger interest of the applicants and did not vitiate the selection process. In this regard, reference can also be made to Sunita Devi v. Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission and Others3, where the certificates of wards of ex-servicemen furnished by the candidates were not in the prescribed format, and, for this reason, the candidature of the petitioners had been rejected for the grant of reservation. The writ petitions were allowed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, holding that although the petitioners had no fundamental right to selection, they possessed a fundamental right to be considered for selection. If any 3 CWP No. 3035 of 2019, decided along with connected matters on 25-11-2019 10 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) application or certificate was not in the proper format or contained a technical error, it was to be treated as a curable defect that could be cured at any time. Rejection of the candidature was held to be a violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Relevant paras from the judgment read as under: - “2. Pursuant to the requisition received from Director Ayurveda, Himachal Pradesh for filling up of 66 posts of Ayurvedic Pharmacists (on contract basis), which have been reserved for the Wards of Ex-servicemen i.e. General (W.Exsm); OBC (W.Exsm); SC (W.Exsm) and ST (W.Exsm), petitioners have submitted their applications, as per the Notification issued by the respondentSelection Commission. The petitioners claimed for consideration of their candidature under different categories of Ex.Servicemen and they have submitted the certificates of Ward of Ex-servicemen on the Format, which is prescribed for the said purpose issued by the Competent Authority, namely, Deputy Director, Zila Sanik Welfare Officer and they were required to submit their certificates as per Annexure-A, duly issued by Patwari/Pradhan Gram Panchayat/President of NAC/ Executive Officer of MC etc. with the further counter-signature of Tehsildar/SDO (Civil) of the area supported by Annexure-B in affidavits made by the deponentpetitioners while submitting their applications. The respondentSelection Commission has processed their applications, allowed them to appear in the written test and interview. However, at the time of evaluation, the candidature of the petitioners have been rejected vide impugned Notice(s) on the ground that certificate of Ward of Exserviceman was not issued in a prescribed Format for fulfilling the requirement for grant of reservation to the ward of Ex-serviceman. Therefore, a prayer has been made in these writ petitions to quash the Notice(s), whereby candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected and further a direction has been sought to the 11 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) respondents to consider their cases for the selection to the posts for which they have applied. 9. Though the petitioners have no fundamental right of selection but have a fundamental right for consideration to the selection and while dealing with fundamental rights respondents have to take all possible steps for considering the applications, until and unless it is hopelessly barred by non-compliance. If any of the applications/certificate was not in the proper format and if there is a technical error, it is to be treated as curative defect which can be curated at any time. At this stage, we find the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners nothing but violation of fundamental right for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. The Selection Commission in order to ensure whether the petitioners are really and genuinely the Wards of Ex- servicemen or not could do it before issuance of appointments order by sending the said certificates to the officers, who have issued thesame, for cross verification, till then no persons could have been held entitled for selection. We are satisfied that the Format which was though prescribed along with the application could not be exactly the same but in letter and spirit it is the same in compliance claiming their candidature for consideration under the Ward of Ex-servicemen. Also the cases of candidates belonging to SC,ST and OBC categories have also to be verified by the competent authority. Therefore, in our considered view the certificates issued in favour of the petitioners are required to be sent to the Competent Authority for cross-verification and on verification, if found suitable, the cases of the petitioners are required to be considered for selection and appointment to the aforesaid posts. In view of above, all writ petitions are allowed and impugned Notice(s) rejecting the candidature of the petitioners is quashed and set aside. Respondent-State is directed to re- draw the merit after evaluating the candidature of the petitioners within three months after re-verification of their certificates. Pending applications if any also stand disposed of. 12 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) At this stage, it will also be relevant to note Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors4. The question that arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court was, whether the error committed in the application form, which was uploaded, is a material or a trivial error and whether the State was justified in declaring the appellant as having failed on account of the same. In the aforesaid case, the appellant had submitted his online application through the assistance of Cyber Café, mentioning his incorrect date of birth. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the error was not so grave so as to constitute wrong or misleading information. Whenever any material discrepancy is noticed in the application form and/or when any suppression and/ or misrepresentation is detected, the candidature might be cancelled even after the application has been processed and the candidate has been allowed to participate in the selection process. However, after a candidate has participated in the selection process and cleared all the stages successfully, his candidature can only be cancelled, after careful scrutiny of the gravity of the lapse, and not for trivial omissions or errors. Law does not concern itself with trifles. In the present case, one of the essential qualifications required under the advertisement was post- 4 (2024) 11 SCC 785 13 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) qualification practical experience certificate. The countersigning of such certificate was a requirement but as part of the checklist issued under the advertisement. In case the experience certificate admittedly supplied by the candidate within the timeline prescribed in the advertisement, was not countersigned by the concerned authority, it was merely a procedural defect that was curable. Respondent No. 3 giving a specific timeline not only to respondent No. 4, but to all similarly situated candidates, for curing different remediable defects in their applications, including the defect of experience certificate having not been countersigned, cannot be held to be an unjusticiable action. It is not that requirement of post qualification practical experience as on date of applying for the post had been dispensed with by respondent No.3. Rather candidates were considered on the basis of such certificates supplied by them as on date of applying but certain curable procedural defects as per check list were noticed by respondent No.3. For removal of these discrepancies, time was granted, in larger interest of the applicants. Countersigning the certificate would not confer eligibility upon a candidate. It is just a circumstance of the recruitment process insisted by respondent No.3 under the check list. For the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. Needless to clarify that while passing this judgement validity of experience certificate furnished by respondent No.4 has not been 14 ( 2026:HHC:40946 ) gone into. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua 24th September, 2026 Judge rohit