Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 439
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
Naresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission and Others - Respondents
CWPOA No. 5620 of 2020
Decided On : 20-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sanjeev Bhushan, Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Angrez Kapoor, Rahul Gathania, Vinod Thakur
Essential qualifications for recruitment must be strictly adhered to, and experience certificates must conform to specified requirements.
Headnote:
(A) Recruitment and Promotion Rules - Essential qualifications for the post of Refrigeration Plant Operator - The selection process was challenged on grounds of improper selection and lack of requisite experience by the selected candidate - The court emphasized that essential qualifications must be strictly adhered to and that the experience certificate must conform to the requirements specified. (Paras 1, 17, 20, 27)
(B) Judicial Review - The court reiterated that it should not substitute the opinion of experts in selection matters unless there is a clear violation of established criteria. (Paras 13, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the selection process for the post of Refrigeration Plant Operator, claiming that the selected candidate did not meet the essential experience requirements. The petitioner was ranked 4th in the merit list and sought to be appointed instead.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the selected candidate lacked the necessary experience as per the essential qualifications and quashed his appointment, directing the petitioner to be appointed instead.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the selected candidate's experience and whether the selection process adhered to the prescribed qualifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the experience certificate of the selected candidate did not meet the essential qualifications required for the post, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the stipulated criteria in recruitment processes.
Result: The selection and appointment of the 3rd respondent to the post of Refrigeration Plant Operator is quashed and set aside; the petitioner is to be appointed instead.
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:
“It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the present original application may very kindly be allowed and the respondent No. 1 may very kindly be directed to declare the applicant successful and further may very kindly be directed to recommend the applicant for the post of Refrigeration Plant Operator, by further directing the respondent No. 2 to offer the appointment to the applicant against the said post in the interest of law and justice.”
2. Respondent No. 1 conducted selection process for five posts of Refrigeration Plant Operator (on contract basis) for respondent No. 2. Out of five posts, three posts were for General (UR), 1 for SC (UR) and 1 for OBC (UR), categories. The prescribed essential qualification was as under: -
“Matric with ITI certificate in refrigeration and air conditioning trade with five years experience in the operation and/or maintenance of air conditioning plant/chilling plant/ refrigeration plant in a reputed concern.” [Emphasis added]
3. After scrutiny only eleven candidates were found to be eligible including petitioner and respondent No. 3. Though, as per advertisement, a written test was to be conducted, however keeping in view the smaller number of eligible candidates respondent No. 1 opted to make selection on the basis of direct selection criteria. The marks were to be awarded from a total of 100 marks. 85% was allocated to the marks secured by the candidates in matriculation and ITI examinations and 15 marks were to be awarded on evaluation.
4. Total four candidates were selected against the post of General (UR) and SC (UR) categories. No selection was made against the category of OBC (UR) on the ground that no eligible candidate was found. Petitioner had also applied under the General (UR) category. His name did not find mention in the select list, hence, this petition.
5. First grievance of the petitioner is that his name figured at serial No. 3 of the merit list but one candidate named Rajesh Kumar with Roll No. 54500011, who had applied against OBC (UR) category, was wrongly selected against General (UR) category. As the second instance, petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No. 3, on the ground that he did not possess the essential required experience.
6. Respondent No. 1 has filed the reply. It has been submitted that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As per respondent No.1, Rajesh Kumar bearing Roll No. 54500011 had topped the overall merit list and hence, he was selected against General (UR) category instead of OBC (UR) category. The candidates with Roll Nos. 54500010 and 54500006 were next in the merit list and were selected against two left out posts of General (UR) category. Petitioner was at serial No. 4 of the merit list and hence, his name was not recommended for appointment.
7. In respect of the experience certificate of 3rd respondent, it has been submitted that the said candidate while appearing for evaluation had submitted an experience certificate issued by Malhotra Refrigeration Works, Hamirpur, H.P. according to which the 3rd respondent had worked as Technical Assistant for Air Conditioning and Refrigeration w.e.f. 2008 to 2013 and on the basis of such certificate, he was considered eligible.
8. Respondent No. 2, though has filed a separate reply, but has shifted the entire burden on the selecting agency i.e. respondent No. 1.
9. Respondent No. 3, in his reply has supported the decision of respondent No.1, whereby he was recommended for selection. He has also placed reliance on the same experience certificate regarding which reference has been found in the reply of respondent No.1.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the record on file as also the original record pertaining to selection process undertaken by respondent No.1.
11. The grievance raised by petitioner with respect to s
