IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No. 486 of 2026 in LPA No.308 of 2026 Decided on : 19.05.2026 State of H.P. and others ...Appellants Versus Surender Kumar and another …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General _________________________________________________________ G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) CMP(M) No. 486 of 2026 Keeping in view of the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the official, delay of 157 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 308 of 2026 The State is seeking consideration of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 5937 of 2022 titled as Surender Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, decided on 28.07.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and directed the State to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Constable pursuant to advertisement dated 10th 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes -2- September, 2021 (Annexure P-1), while accepting the plea of the private respondent that he already remained in service for a considerable period of time. The reason, as such, for granting the said relief was that the three marks for having participated in the National Level Basketball Championship had not been granted and, in such circumstances, it was found that the petitioner had secured 57.92 marks, whereas the last selected candidate was shown to have secured 60.775 marks. Had the benefit of three marks been granted, he would have been included in the merit list (Annexure P-9). 2. The learned Single Judge had noticed that the discipline of Basketball was included in the list of recognized sports and the plea taken that mere participation would not entitle the candidate to the benefit of three marks and that only medal winners in South Asian Federation (SAF) Games were entitled to the same, was contrary to the advertisement and the instructions relied upon by the Government. The arguments which have now been sought to be repeated on the strength of the Notification dated 22nd January, 2002 (Annexure R-2) were rejected, since the same specifically deals with the issue of reservation to distinguished sportspersons in various services. It was recorded as a finding of fact, and not disputed that the petitioner had never applied under the Distinguished Sportsperson quota, rather he had applied under the General Unreserved quota and the marks on account of academic qualification and physical efficiency test had already been granted. -3- 3. The Stage-6 column forming part of the Advertisement, which quantified how many marks had to be given, was also duly noticed. Perusal of the same would go on to show that marks were prescribed for educational qualification, wherein maximum 2.5 marks could be allotted, whereas a person belonging to a backward area Panchayat got one mark and a landless family member having land below one hectare, got another mark. Participation in NSS was granted four marks and a person having LMV driving licence was to get 1.5 marks. Under the relevant Clause 6(v), the persons possessing certificates in sports, as notified by the Department of Personnel, were entitled to: (a) International Level – 4 marks, (b) National Level – 3 marks, and (c) State Level – 2 marks. A medal winner of International/Olympic/National level sports competition got one mark as notified by the Department of Personnel. 4. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge rejected the plea that mere participation could not entitle the candidate to three marks and further recorded a finding that the respondents had confused the issue and that there was no plausible reason for not granting the said three marks. Rather, an attempt had been made to defeat the claim of the petitioner on the basis of Notification dated 22.01.2002 issued by the Department of Personnel, which was not applicable to the facts of the present case, as it pertained to the issue of reservation for sports persons. The candidate in the writ petition was an unreserved category candidate. The findings also pointed out that no -4- sports quota had ever been provided under the relevant Rules, and the notification dealt with only with the issue of 3% reservation for sports persons. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed as the grant of the said benefit brought the petitioner within the zone of consideration. 5. Counsel for the State, however, is not in a position to persuade us to agree with the said argument, which has been repeated. Perusal of the State’s notification would go on to show that it talks about providing reservation to sportsmen in services under the Government and the eligibility criteria for selection of outstanding sportspersons in service, as detailed in Annexure-A. The various categories reserved therein include medal winners in South Asian Federation (SAF) Games, participation in South Asian Federation (SAF) Games and at least three participations in National Championship and Senior National Championship. 6. Perusal of the Advertisement in question dated 10th September, 2021 (Annexure P-1) would also go on to show that there were total 1334 seats all over the State and we are informed that the issue pertains to District Mandi, which had 136 General Duty Constable posts for males, 45 for females and 13 posts of Constable Drivers, taking the total to 194, as per the details of the vacancies. It was specifically mentioned that the District-wise posts were to be filled as per the break- up given therein. The said table further refers that District-wise category- wise reservation of vacancies would be notified as per the reservation roster and policy of the H.P. Government. Counsel for the State is not in -5- a position to point out that any reservation was carved out of the said posts for District Mandi. 7. It is apparent that the advertisement itself was issued in pursuance to Notification dated 5th August, 2021 (Annexure R-5), which also finds mention in the advertisement dated 10.09.2021 itself. The said notification, namely the Himachal Pradesh Police Department Recruitment of Constables Rules, 2021 provides the details regarding the manner in which the recruitment process is to be conducted. The relevant column itself provides grant of three marks at the National Level to candidates possessing the relevant sports certificate, apart from the other break-up already discussed above. Thus, the mandatory provisions had already been incorporated in the advertisement itself and it was the bounden duty of the State to grant the said three marks while calculating the merit, as such. The learned Single Judge had rightly allowed the writ petition, as upon not being granted the said benefit, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the concerned writ petition and his sole prayer was for consideration of the said participation certificate in sports (Annexure P-6) by evaluation of the documents. Counsel for the State has attempted to contend that the certificate was only for participation at the Sub-Junior level and, therefore, in view of Notification dated 22nd January, 2002, no benefit could be granted. 8. We are of the considered opinion that the State had taken a categorical decision by application of mind, that for the post of Constables, candidates having sports participation would have the -6- advantage of having played and achieved participation, and marks had specifically been prescribed for the same. The Notification dated 22nd January, 2002 only talks about the procedure to be followed while applying for reserved seats under the outstanding sportsperson quota. The writ petitioner had never claimed any such benefit as an outstanding sportsperson against a reserved seat as such at the International or National Level. Rather, he was only seeking the benefit of marks for his participation in the Sub-Junior National Basketball Championship as a player, which had wrongly been denied to him. 9. The table itself also provides marks not only for participation in sports but also to persons belonging to landless families having less than one hectare of land and those belonging to backward area Panchayats. Clause 6 rationalized the manner in which marks were to be awarded for preparing the merit. The specific stand in the reply without any basis was also that rejection had been made on the basis of Notification dated 22nd January, 2002, on the ground that marks could only be granted to medal winners and not for participation. 10. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity and the findings recorded are fully justified -7- and do not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed. . (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 19th May, 2026 (Tarun Singh)