2026:HHC:6969 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 933 of 2019 Decided on : 11.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Bhagi Rath Chauhan ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-6), whereby the appointment offered to him as Junior Draughtsman on contract basis, vide office memorandum dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-2), was withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner had done his diploma of Draughtsman (Civil), in the year 1989 and thereafter got 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:6969 enrolled with respondent No.4, vide registration No. 39/90. Respondents No.1 and 2 advertised certain posts of Junior Draughtsman to be filled up on batch wise basis, and since the name of the petitioner was sponsored by respondent No.4, he got call letter on 19.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) to appear for the personal interview on 04.07.2014. 3. The petitioner appeared in the interview and showed his testimonials for appointment as Junior Draughtsman (Civil) on batch wise basis. Respondent No.2 after scrutinizing the documents, submitted by the petitioner, along with all other eligible persons offered appointment to the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-2). 4. The petitioner joined his duties in sequel to the said appointment order dated 21.07.2014 on 24.07.2014 and vide office order dated 26.07.2014 (Annexure P-3), he was directed to report for duties in the Drawing Branch of the office of Executive Engineer, Bilaspur Division No. II, HPPWD Bilaspur. However, within a week a show cause notice was issued to him on 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-4), in which it was mentioned that none of the candidates belonging to the passing of diploma of the year 1989 in the 3 2026:HHC:6969 reserve category of Scheduled Caste (SC) has been selected vis-a-vis the numbers of posts i.e. 13 in number, so meant for SC out of total 54 posts to be filled up on batch wise basis. Due to mis-statement of fact by respondent No.4, which was not corrected during interview, the petitioner has been offered the appointment, whereas in fact, in his place, the candidate belonging to SC category having completed diploma of Draughtsman during the year 1988, namely Shri Wattan Singh, being senior to him in batch-wise selection, is to be given/offered appointment who is at Serial No. 1. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 06.08.2014 (Annexure P-5), wherein it was mentioned that he had submitted all the requisite documents in original, including the employment card which was examined by the interview board and further being fully satisfied, the board offered the appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that so far the allegations regarding batch wise non-selection of any candidate belonging to the batch of 1989 in the reserved category and further, the candidate namely Wattan Singh, son of Udho Ram being senior to him, is concerned, no document to corroborate the said fact has been supplied to 4 2026:HHC:6969 him with the show cause notice. Therefore, he sought four weeks’ time to procure the documents under RTI. However, vide memorandum dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-6), the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 21.07.2014 was withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect. 6. The petitioner has laid challenge to the said order on the grounds that the order passed by the respondents is non speaking and unreasoned and further no personal allegations have been made against him and it was only respondents No.3 & 4, who could have proved the case of the respondents. Allegations in the show cause notice are vague, not specific, and there is no evidence on record to substantiate these allegations. 7. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed their reply and submitted that respondent-Department had notified 62 number of vacancies of Junior Draughtsman on batch wise basis. Accordingly, 520 names of suitable candidates as per batch were sponsored by the Employment Exchange(s) of Himachal Pradesh, respectively, and the name of the petitioner was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange Sundernagar, Mandi, HP (respondent No. 4). The petitioner 5 2026:HHC:6969 was accordingly appointed as Junior Draughtsman (Class-III) on contract basis through batch wise mode on 21.07.2014. However, later on, it came to the notice of the Chairman, Selection Committee that the petitioner and one Sunita Devi, daughter of Krishan Dass have been offered appointment prior to the candidates, who were their senior in batch. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had managed to produce the recommendations of Employment Exchange, Sundernagar, wherein the passing year or diploma of the petitioner in Draughtsman was mentioned as, 1987. The respondent-Department had acted promptly and issued show cause notice to the petitioner and one Sh. Krishan Chand and thereafter, passed the impugned order and this Court vide interim order dated 22.10.2014, had stayed the operation of impugned rejection order dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-6). It has been averred that the claim of the petitioner is neither legally sustainable nor maintainable. It was submitted that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and on the basis of false information, he remained continued in service. 8. Respondent No.4 filed separate reply and stated that the requisition for filling up the posts of Junior 6 2026:HHC:6969 Draughtsman was received from the Superintending Engineer (D-II), HPPWD, Nirman Bhawan, Nigam Vihar Shimla, notifying therein 62 posts of all categories, i.e. 27 posts for general category, 06 posts for Ex-Servicemen, 03 posts for General IRDP, one post for WFF, 13 posts for SC category, one post for ST category, one post for ST/IRDP, 07 posts for OBC category, two posts for OBC Ex-Servicemen and one post of OBC/IRDP category. This was batch wise recruitment and candidates of Scheduled Caste category were called upto 1995 batch. The petitioner’s batch is 1987- 1989 and accordingly, his name was sponsored vide list No. IOD/3/14-84-85 dated 31.01.2014. 9. I have heard Mr. Digvijay Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents and also gone perused the case file carefully. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was called for the interview and thereafter, was offered appointment vide memorandum dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-2). The only dispute which arises for adjudication is that the petitioner was wrongly offered appointment for the reason that the persons senior to his batch of 1988, were not 7 2026:HHC:6969 offered appointment. No doubt, respondents No.1 to 3 have mentioned that the petitioner had mischievously managed to produce the recommendations of Employment Exchange Sundernagar, wherein the passing year of diploma in Draughtsman was mentioned as 1987, but the said fact is not substantiated by any document placed on record. 11. Respondent No.4, while filing reply to the petition has categorically mentioned that the Superintending Engineer (D-II), HPPWD, Nirman Bhawan, Nigam Vihar Shimla-2, had asked for batch wise recruitment and to sponsor the names for batch wise recruitment, candidates of SC category were called for upto 1995 batch. The petitioner belongs to SC category and further, his batch is 1987-1989. From the reply filed by respondent No.4, it is crystal clear that the name of the petitioner was also sponsored for appointment to the post of Junior Draughtsman, being Scheduled Caste category candidate and the petitioner had not managed to secure the employment with the respondents-State. The Selection Committee had seen the original documents and only, thereafter, he was offered appointment. The petitioner had shown his original diploma in which the year of the batch 8 2026:HHC:6969 and passing was specifically mentioned, only thereafter, the petitioner was offered appointment as Junior Draughtsman (Civil) being Scheduled Caste category candidate. 12. This Court vide order dated 22.10.2014 had stayed the operation of order dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-6). It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner has now been retired from service on 31.08.2025. No doubt, this Court had passed the interim order protecting the petitioner, when it had stayed the order dated 23.08.2014, passed by respondents-State, whereby the appointment made in favour of the petitioner, vide office memorandum dated 21.07.2014 was withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect, but this Court cannot lose site of the fact that the respondents after granting stay did not take any steps to get the stay order vacated. 13. It is settled law that if there is some mistake on the part of the Department at the time of offering appointment to an employee and there being no misrepresentation on the part of employee, his appointment cannot be withdrawn or his services cannot be terminated. In the present case, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible to hold the post and 9 2026:HHC:6969 further he had produced some fake certificate to secure the employment. The Selection Committee at the time of interview had seen the original documents, which the petitioner had produced in pursuance of the interview letter dated 19.06.2014, issued to him, wherein it was specifically mentioned to bring his Employment Exchange card, identity card and all original testimonials along with academic, technical qualification, caste certificate, date of birth proof, bonafide certificate, experience and one passport size photograph etc. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had the occasion to deal with similar preposition of law in Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, (2013) 14 SCC, 494, and has held that if a person has successfully undergone training and thereafter is efficiently serving the respondent-State for more than three years and further the termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of person and their dependents, but also adversely affect their careers. Such action would be highly unjust if the services of such appointee is discontinued. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereinunder:- “28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving 10 2026:HHC:6969 the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.” 15. Again a similar issue had crept up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anmol Kumar Tiwari and others vs. State of Jharkhand and others, (2021) 5 SCC 424, wherein the High Court had directed the reinstatement of the employees, holding that though the employees were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in a regular manner, but since they were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities, they cannot be punished for no fault of theirs. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- “11. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of 11 2026:HHC:6969 the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh case, where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh case, we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present.” 16. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also considered the same very issue in CWP No. 10169 of 2024, titled, Kajal Mehra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & another, and had quashed the impugned order, whereby the services of the employee were terminated. 17. From the facts, which have emerged from the pleadings, as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is crystal clear that since there is no fault on the part of the petitioner coupled with the fact that respondents did not take any effective steps to get the stay order vacated granted on 22.10.2014 for about 12 years, it would be harsh to upheld the impugned order. 12 2026:HHC:6969 18. As already observed above, the petitioner after serving with the respondents-State has retired from service on 31.08.2025, hence, justice demands that the petitioner, who has rendered his services with the respondents-State, may be permitted to reap the fruits of service which would entitle him to the pensionary benefits. 19. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-6), is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to grant him pension on the basis of services rendered by him with them w.e.f. 24.07.2014, till his superannuation. However, no orders as to cost. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 11 th March, 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge