IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3239 of 2024 Date of Decision: 21.8.2025 _____________________________________________________________________

Pinki ……...Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Anr.

…....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1/Commission.

CMr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent No.2/HRTC.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Precisely, question, which needs to be determined in the instant case is whether respondent No.1/Commission, could have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of eligibility after permitting her to participate in the selection process initiated for selection to the post of Conductor in respondent No.2-HRTC.

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once respondent- Commission had accepted the application form of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Conductor and thereafter, petitioner had qualified Written Objective Test, it could not have Psubsequently, declared her in-eligible on account of her having not passed 10th and 10+2 examination from any school/institution of the State of Himachal Pradesh and not being Bonafide Himachali .

3. Facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that on receipt of requisition from Managing Director, Hitmachal Road Transport Corporation, respondent-commission advertised 360 posts of Conductor vide advertisement No. 4/4-2023 dated 4.4.2023, under different categories (Annexure P-3). As per advertisement under the heading of “important instructions”, instruction No. 10 “essential qualifications”, it came to be provided that a candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the post, if he/she has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from gany school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, ihowever, such condition would not apply to Bonafide Himachali, meaning thereby, a candidate desirous of applying for the post in question either should be Bonafide Himachali or should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh.

4. Petitioner herein, who admittedly belongs to State of Haryana and has not passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, submitted online application, which came to be accepted, as a result thereof, she was also permitted to participaPte in Written Objective Test, provisionally. Though petitioner passed Written Objective Test, but at the time of preparation of final merit list, her candidature was rejected on the ground that neither she is Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from school/institution situate within Himachal Pradesh. In the afore background, petitioner has atpproached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“(i) That the impugned note appended in the advertisement dateod 04.04.2023, Annexure-P3, under the head ‘Essential Qualifications, to the effect that: “A candidate shall be eligible for appointment to this post, if, he/she has passed Matriculation and 10+2 from any school/institution situated within Himachal Pradesh provided this condition shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis”, may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(ii) That the impugned Annexure–P9, dated 14.03,2024, i whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Conductor has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside:

(iii) That the respondent No.1-Commission may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner