2026:HHC:14249 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPOA No.4530 of 2020 Decided on: 29.04.2026 Rupesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr.Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Rupinder Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 7. Mr.Vikrant, Advocate vice Mr.C.D. Negi, Advocate for respondents No.8, 9, 11, 13 and 14. Mr.Lovneesh Singh Thakur, Advocate for respondents No.10, 12 and 15. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “(A) That Respondent no. 8-15may be declared not normal resident of employment exchange in Distt. Kullu from where their names have been sponsored for appointment in the respective year to the post of Drawing Master (DM) and their appointment may be quashed and set aside being violative of Annexure A- 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:14249 15, Para 7.4 of Chapter 7 of National Employment Service Manual Vol.I& respondent no.4's instruction dated 15.4.2000 in the interest of justice and fair play. (B) That the respondents-State may be directed to produce the record of the case as also appointment letters issued to respondents No. 8 to 15 and same may be quashed and set aside. (C) That the respondents-State may be directed to strictly adhere to the guidelines issued for the purpose of registration of a candidate with the Employment Exchange, as contained in annexure A-15 (para 7.4 of Chapter 7 of N.E.S.M. Vol-I) &respondent no.4's instruction dated 15.4.2000 in the interest of justice.” 2. The precise grouse of the petitioners as germane from the pleadings is that the respondents have not followed the procedure as contemplated in para 7.4 of Chapter 7 of the National Employment Service Manual Vol.-I (“in short NESM”), which lays down the procedure for registration of a candidate in the Employment Exchange for employment assistance. The State Government on the basis of norms fixed in NESM, issued instructions on 05.04.2000 (Annexure A- 15), wherein it was specifically mentioned that before registering the candidate in the Employment Exchange, it should be ensured that unless the candidate has been a regular student of a recognized educational institution (School, I.T.I., Polytechnic, College, University etc.) of the recent batch or is locally employed or is a resident of that 3 2026:HHC:14249 particular area, his/her name is not to be registered. In case of a doubt that a student may not be a normal resident and in the case of other categories of candidates mentioned above, a certificate of being a normal resident of the area falling in the jurisdiction of the respective Employment Exchanges must invariably be obtained which should be issued either by the officers/officials of the Revenue Department-Patwari, i.e. Kanungo, Naib-Tehsildar, Tehsildar, S.D.M., D.M., A.D.C. or D.C or by the B.D.O. for their respective territorial jurisdiction. In case where either the candidate or his parent is in employment of a Government/Semi Government/Board/ Corporation of Government, a certificate of being a normal resident of the area be asked to be obtained from the Head of Department/Head of Office. However, respondent No.6 without following the said procedure, had sponsored the names of the private respondents for their appointment to the post of Drawing Master, to which post, the petitioners were also eligible and residents of District Kullu, H.P. which has hampered their prospects. 3. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post of Drawing Master, 50% post are to be filled-up on batch-wise basis and 50% posts through Himachal Pradesh 4 2026:HHC:14249 Subordinate Selection Commission, Hamirpur, H.P. Since the respondents-State had not followed the procedure as contemplated in the instructions issued by the NESM and offered appointments to the private respondents No. 8 to 15, the same be quashed and further they be declared not normal resident of Employment Exchange in District Kullu, H.P. The petitioners have not claimed any relief qua their appointment to the posts of Drawing Master. 4. 4. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed short reply and averred that the petition instituted by the petitioners against them is not maintainable because as per information received from the Deputy Director, Elementary Education, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., the registration of the candidates in Employment Exchange is made by the Employment Exchange concerned. However, as per statement of District Employment Officer, Kullu, the names of the petitioners have been registered in Employment Exchange, Kullu. So far as the private respondents namely, Chuni Lal son of Paras Ram, Jagdish Kumar son of Roop Singh and Rakesh Kumar son of Charan Dass are concerned, their names were registered with sub office Employment Exchange, Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. It is further averred that as per Government Notification 5 2026:HHC:14249 dated 05.04.2000, the normal residence certificate is verified. Respondent No.9 Chuni Lal transferred his record from District Employment Exchange, Pooh, District Kinnaur, H.P. to District Employment Exchange, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. on the basis of normal residence certificate that he resides with his brother, who is working in Irrigation & Public Health (I&PH) Department as Clerk. The job of registration is not made by the replying respondents, rather, main function of the registration of a candidate in Employment Exchange is done by the Department of Labour & Employment. It is submitted that any candidates of domicile of Himachal Pradesh can appear in the interview/counseling held in any District in Himachal Pradesh in response to the advertisement, irrespective of the registration in the Employment Exchange. It is not necessary that the candidate should have been registered in a particular district Employment Exchange. The District cadre is treated after joining the post by the selected candidate. 5. Respondents No.4 to 6 filed joint reply to the petition and averred that registration of respondents No.8 to 15 has been made on the documentary evidence of normal residents of the area, which falls in the jurisdiction of 6 2026:HHC:14249 concerned Employment Exchanges, where their names have been registered and as such, the Original Application is not maintainable. It has been averred that whenever Employment Exchanges receive written requisitions from employers, the names of registrants are sponsored to the employer in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down by the employer (i.e. age, educational qualification etc.). The names of eligible candidates registered with the Employment Exchanges were sponsored through respondent No.3. After sponsoring the names, the said respondent has no role with the appointments. 6. Private respondents No.8, 9, 11, 13 and 14 have filed their separate reply and averred that respondent No.4 has issued instructions dated 05.04.2000 and the registration of private respondents had been made on the documentary evidence of the normal residents of the area, which falls in the jurisdiction of the concerned Employment Exchange, where their names were registered. It is not necessary that the candidates should have been registered in a particular District Employment Exchange. Further, the District cadre is created after joining on the post, as clarified in the letter dated 03.06.2011. The reply filed by the aforementioned 7 2026:HHC:14249 respondents was adopted by other private respondents, who had not filed their separate reply. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. 8. As per NESM Manual, the procedure has been prescribed to register the names of eligible candidates at Employment Exchange for employment assistance. It also provides that the “applicants, unless specially exempted by the State Director (Labour Commissioner-cum-Director of Employment, H.P.) or by the Director General (of Employment and Training, Government of India) shall be registered at the Employment Exchange in whose jurisdiction they normally reside.” On the basis of said manual, the State Government had issued instructions dated 05.04.2000 (Annexure A-15), which prescribes the procedure. No doubt, to register the names of the candidates with the Employment Exchange in a particular place, the person should be normal resident of the said area, but once the respondents had specifically pleaded in the reply that any candidate of domicile of Himachal Pradesh can appear in the interview/counselling held in an District in H.P. irrespective of the registration of Employment Exchange, no illegality can be found with the selection of the 8 2026:HHC:14249 private respondents. The illegality, if any, committed by the Employment Exchange before registering the names cannot draw an adverse inference that the appointments of the private respondents is not in consonance with the R&P Rules, more particularly when candidates from other Districts could have also appeared in the interview/counseling. 9. The petitioners in the writ petition have not claimed appointment to them, but only questioned the appointment of the private respondents on the plea that they were not the normal residents of the Employment Exchanges from where their names have been sponsored for appointment in the respective years to the post of Drawing Master. Once the respondents have registered their names and thereafter the Employment Exchanges had sponsored their names as per qualifications prescribed in the R&P Rules for the post of Drawing Master and respondent No.3 offered appointment on batch-wise basis, where the candidature of the petitioners could have also been considered, no illegality can be said to be committed by the respondents while considering the candidature of the private respondents and thereafter offering them appointment. Had the petitioners claimed that they should have been offered appointment, this Court could have 9 2026:HHC:14249 ventured into that aspect of the matter, but since the petitioners have not claimed any relief for their appointments against the posts of Drawing Master, this Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to them. Further, no illegality has been committed by the employment exchange while sponsoring the names of the private respondents for the post of Drawing Master as per their qualification under the R&P Rules and thereafter offering them appointment by respondent No.3. As already noticed above, any eligible enrolled in the Employment Exchange in the Himachal Pradesh could have participated in the interview/counseling conducted by the respondents-State to offer him appointment as Drawing Master and, thus, no illegality can be found even if the private respondents were not the residents of District Kullu, H.P. 10. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 29th April, 2026 Judge (naveen)