2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIAHON'BLE MR. RANJAN SHARMA
BELI RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
CWP/1756/2023

A person has no vested right to appointment merely for being considered in a selection process. A court cannot compel the government to exercise a discretionary power to grant relaxation, nor can it treat a one-time relaxation as a perpetual one for future vacancies.

Headnote:(A) Himachal Pradesh Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2011 - Physical Education Teachers - Rule 7 (Minimum Educational Qualification), Rule 10 (Method of Recruitment), Rule 18 (Power to Relax) - Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 - National Council for Teacher Education (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Persons to be Recruited as Physical Education Teachers) Regulations, 2014 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 309. (Paras 11, 12, 18, 19, 20)

(B) Service Law - Public Employment - Right to appointment - No vested right of appointment exists for a candidate merely because he was considered or participated in a selection process; only a right to be considered in accordance with the existing rules is available. (Paras 12(ii-a) to 12(ii-f))

(C) Service Law - Power of Relaxation - Exercise of - The power to relax qualifications under Rule 18 of the Recruitment & Promotion Rules is discretionary and vested in the State Government, which must form an opinion based on necessity or expediency and consult the Public Service Commission; a Court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the Government and cannot issue a mandamus directing the Government to grant relaxation as a matter of right. (Paras 13(i-a) to 13(i-e), 13(iii))

(D) Precedent - Dismissal of SLP without reasons - A non-speaking order of dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution and is not a binding precedent; such a judgment cannot be used to claim parity where the earlier case was decided without adjudication on the merits of the applicable statutory rules and the limited scope of the relaxation. (Paras 14(i) to 14(i-b)) (E) Service Law - Filling of future vacancies - After the culmination of a selection process, a waiting list or past selection process cannot be used as a reservoir to fill future vacancies; vacancies must be filled by issuing a fresh advertisement and following a fresh selection process in accordance with the rules in force on the date of commencement of the new selection process. (Paras 18(i) to 18(iv))

Facts of the case:
The State of Himachal Pradesh appealed against a Single Judge judgment that had quashed the rejection of claims of certain candidates seeking appointment as Physical Education Teachers (PETs). The writ petitioners, who possessed a one-year Diploma in Physical Education (under the old 1973 Rules), were rendered ineligible by the new 2011 Rules which required a two-year Diploma. The State Cabinet had granted a one-time relaxation on 29.01.2011 (notified on 15.02.2011) to fill 125 specific posts of PETs (1000 posts of various teachers), of which 62 were to be filled by batch-wise recruitment. The writ petitioners were considered under this relaxation but were not selected. They sought parity with 20 other persons who were appointed as PETs pursuant to a judgment in Saroj Kumar v. State of H.P. The Single Judge directed the State to grant relaxation and appoint the writ petitioners against vacant posts. The State appealed, arguing that the relaxation was one-time, the writ petitioners had no vested right, and the Saroj Kumar judgment was not a binding precedent.

Findings of Court:
The Division Bench allowed the State's appeal and dismissed the writ petitions. The court held that the writ petitioners had no vested right to appointment after being considered but not selected in the one-time batch-wise recruitment. The court further held that the Single Judge erred in directing the State to grant relaxation, as the power to relax under Rule 18 is discretionary and lies with the government; a court cannot substitute its own opinion. The court distinguished the Saroj Kumar judgment, noting it was decided without considering the one-time nature of the relaxation or Rule 18 and that the dismissal of the SLP therein was a non-speaking order, not a binding precedent. The court also held that directing the appointment of ineligible candidates against future vacancies would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the statutory 2011 Rules, and the NCTE Regulations of 2014.

Issues: 1. Whether the writ petitioners had a vested right to appointment as Physical Education Teachers after having been considered but not selected under a one-time relaxation? 2. Whether the Single Judge could issue a mandamus directing the State to grant a relaxation in educational qualifications, thereby converting a one-time relaxation into a perpetual one? 3. Whether the judgment in Saroj Kumar constituted a binding precedent that could be relied upon by the writ petitioners to claim parity? 4. Whether the court could direct the filling of future vacancies from ineligible candidates?

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that a candidate does not acquire a vested right to appointment merely by participating in a selection process. The power to grant statutory relaxation is a discretionary power of the State Government, and a court cannot substitute its own satisfaction or direct the government to exercise that power in a particular manner. A judgment dismissing an SLP without reasons does not declare the law and is not a binding precedent; therefore, a claim for parity based on such a judgment, especially one that did not adjudicate the applicable statutory rules and limitations, is not tenable. Appointments to public posts must be made strictly in accordance with the statutory rules in force, and directing the appointment of ineligible candidates against future vacancies would be illegal and violative of the constitutional right of eligible candidates to be considered.

Result: The Letters Patent Appeals filed by the State were allowed, and the connected writ petitions were dismissed. The impugned judgment of the Learned Single Judge dated 19.07.2022 was quashed and set aside. The claim of the writ petitioners for relaxation and appointment against future vacancies was disapproved as being contrary to the Recruitment & Promotion Rules and the NCTE Regulations. Parties were directed to bear their own costs. (Paras 22(i) to 22(v))