IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SANDEEP SHARMA, JJ.
MEENAKSHI DAUGHTER OF SHRI PRITAM SINGH - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. - Respondent
CWP NOS. 1730 OF 2014, 2120, 3319, 4498 AND 5871 OF 2014 AND CWP NO. 2933 OF 2016
Decided On : 20-09-2021
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Appointment to posts of Civil Judges - Issue raised in all above captioned writ petitions pertains to appointment to posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division), in State of Himachal Pradesh, pursuant to advertisement, whereby Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up 08 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services and all petitioners are aggrieved of their non-selection to aforesaid posts, as such, these petitions were tagged and heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment - Whether vacancies, if any occurred in a particular year during subsistence of ongoing selection process pursuant to advertisement inviting applications for filling up 06 existing vacancies and 02 anticipated vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division), could be filled up from amongst candidates borne on Select List prepared on basis of merit drawn in ongoing selection process – Held, court wishes to observe that an anomalous situation has arisen only on account of non-application of mind on part of Commission, which on receipt of requisition for three more posts from respondent No.1, ought to have adopted selection process as per its Rules of Business and ought not have straightway recommended names of respondents Nos. 4 and 6 for appointment to posts in question, especially when it was in its knowledge that these three posts had never been advertised and no selection process qua such posts had ever taken place - Since Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission is a specialist agency established only for purpose of recruitment to public posts under State Government, it is expected to work in accordance with law, rules etc - Though there is nothing on record suggestive of fact that any mala fides were behind selection of respondents Nos. 4 and 6, but definitely, omission on the part of Commission gives rise to apprehension that such procedure can become a handle in hands of recruiting agency to favour one, to detriment of another - Since this court is convinced that respondent No.2-Public Service Commission is solely responsible for this illegality in appointment of respondents Nos. 4 and 6, a word of caution is put to said respondent to be careful in future in such matters - Needless to say, vacancies so arising due to quashment of appointments of respondents No. 4 and 6, , shall be considered vacancies of year 2021 and same shall be filled in accordingly, in accordance with law/Rules - Petitions stand disposed of.
ORDER :
Precise question, which has fallen for determination in the cases at hand is that, “whether the vacancies, if any occurred in a particular year during the subsistence of the ongoing selection process pursuant to the advertisement inviting applications for filling up 06 existing vacancies and 02 anticipated vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division), could be filled up from amongst the candidates borne on Select List prepared on the basis of merit drawn in the ongoing selection process?”
2. Since the issue raised in all the above captioned writ petitions pertains to appointment to the posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division), in the State of Himachal Pradesh, pursuant to advertisement dated 1.2.2013, whereby Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up 08 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services and all the petitioners are aggrieved of their non-selection to the aforesaid posts, as such, these petitions were tagged and heard together and are being disposed of vide this common judgment.
3. For having bird’s eye view of the matter and for the sake of brevity, facts and annexures of CWP No. 1730 of 2014, are being discussed herein. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter, ‘Commission’) vide advertisement No. VII/2012 dated 1.2.2013 (Annexure P2) invited applications from eligible candidates for Himachal Pradesh Judicial Services against the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division). Vide aforesaid advertisement, 08 vacancies of Civil Judges (Junior Division) came to be advertised under two categories as under:
| Sr. No. | Vacancies | Number of Posts |
| 1. | Existing number of vacancies | =06 (OBC-02, SC-01, ST-02 & UR-01) |
| 2. | Anticipated vacancies for the next one year | =02 (UR-02) |
|
| Total | =08 vacancies |
4. All the petitioners pursuant to aforesaid advertisement applied for the posts and they all being eligible, were permitted to participate in the preliminary examination. Preliminary examination was held on 12.5.2013 and result thereof was declared on 15.6.2013. All the petitioners after having cleared preliminary examination, were permitted to participate in main examination held with effect from 15th to 18th July, 2013. Vide press note (Annexure P-3 of CWP No. 5871 of 2014), candidates with following roll numbers were declared qualified in the main examination
| CATEGORY : GENERAL (03 POSTS) | |||||
| 1003 | 1025 | 1064 | 1076 | 1093 | 1107 |
| 1126 | 1129 | 1175 | 1199 | 1238 | 1250 |
| 1299 | 1319 | 1350 | 1369 | 1400 | 1415 |
| 1432 | 1495 | 1520 | 1540 | 1636 | 1708 |
| 1723 | 2054 | 2070 | 2099 | 2131 | 2216 |
| (30 Candidates) | |||||
| CATEGORY: SCHEDULED CASTE(01) POSTS | |||||
| 1113 | 1236 | 1366 | 1386 | 1418 | 1597 |
| 1673 | 1751 | 2006 | 2119 | (10 Candidates) | |
| CATEGORY: SCHEDULED TRIBE (02) POSTS | |||||
| 1009 | 1057 | 109 | 1139 | 1144 | 1190 |
| 1340 | 1374 | 1477 | 1490 | 1498 | 1518 |
| 1526 | 1642 | 1651 | 1670 | 1715 | 1742 |
| 2096 | 2185 | (20 Candidates) | |||
| CATEGORY: O.B.C. (02) POSTS | |||||
| 1015 | 1143 | 1187 | 1365 | 1419 | 1431 |
| 1440 | 1510 | 1613 | 1700 | 2005 | 2058 |
| 2062 | 2075 | 2098 | 2109 | 2111 | 2138 |
| 2172 | 2220 | (20 Candidates) | |||
5. Since three posts were meant for general category, 09 candidates as per their merit were called for interview whereas, under SC, ST and OBC categories, since number of candidates qualifying the main examination was equal to the number of posts available, they all were called for the interview held on 7th and 8th October, 2013. Following candidates were finally selected in the aforesaid interview, as per Press note (Annexure P-5):
| Sr. No. | Roll No. | Name of the candidate | Category |
| Clear Cut Vacancies | |||
| 1. | 1025 | Ms. Anshu Chaudhary | General |
| 2. | 2006 | Sh. Nishant Verma | Sch. Caste |
| 3. | 1670 | Ms. Pratibha Negi | Sc |
Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi
State of Bihar & Ors. v. The Secretariat Assistant S.E. Union 1986 & Ors AIR 1994 SC 736
High Court of Kerala v. Reshma A.
Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB (1996) 4 SCC 319 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 934
Virender S. Hooda v. State of Haryana
Virender Singh Hooda v. State of Haryana
India Judges Assn. (3) v. Union of India
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.