IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWPOA No. 933 of 2019 Decided on : 11.03.2026 ____________________________________________________________

Bhagi Rath Chauhan H ...Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

...Respondents ____________________________ ________________________________

Coram t Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Amit Kumar Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General.

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing impugned order dated 23.08.2014 H (Annexure P-6), whereby the appointment offered to him as Junior Draughtsman on contract basis, vide office memorandum dated 21.07.2014 (Annexure P-2), was withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case are that the petitioner had done his diploma of Draughtsman (Civil), in the year 1989 and thereafter got

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

enrolled with respondent No.4, vide registration No. 39/90. Respondents No.1 and 2 advertised certain posts of Junior Draughtsman to be filled up on batch wise basis, and since the name of the petitioner was sponsHored by respondent No.4, he got call letter on 19.06.2014 (Annexure P-1) to appear for the personal interview on 04.07.2014.

3. The petitioner appeared in the interview and showed his testimoniatls for appointment as Junior Draughtsman (Civil) on batch wise basis. Respondent No.2 after scrutinizing the documents, submitted by the petitioner, along with all other eligible persons offered appointment to the petitioner, vide memorandum dated h21.07.2014 (Annexure P-2).

4. The petitioner joined his duties in sequel to the said appointment order dated 21.07.2014 on 24.07.2014 and vide office order dated 26.07.2014 (Annexure P-3), he was directed to report for duties in the Drawing Branch of the office of Executive Engineer, Bilaspur Division No. II, HPPWD Bilaspur. However, within a week a show cause notice was issued to him on 31.07.2014 (Annexure P-4), in which it was mentioned that none of the candidates belonging to the passing of diploma of the year 1989 in the reserve category of Scheduled Caste (SC) has been selected vis-a-vis the numbers of posts i.e. 13 in number, so meant for SC out of total 54 posts to be filled up on batch wise basis. Due to mis-statement of fact bHy respondent No.4, which was not corrected during interview, the petitioner has been offered the appointment, whereas in fact, in his place, the candidate belonging to SC category having completed diploma of Draughtsmant during the year 1988, namely Shri Wattan Singh, being senior to him in batch-wise selection, is to be given/offered appointment who is at Serial No. 1.

5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 06.08.2014 (Annexure P-5), wherein it was hmentioned that he had submitted all the requisite documents in original, including the employment card which was examined by the interview board and further being fully satisfied, the board offered the appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner also stated that so far the allegations regarding batch wise non-selection of any candidate belonging to the batch of 1989 in the reserved category and further, the candidate namely Wattan Singh, son of Udho Ram being senior to him, is concerned, no document to corroborate the said fact has been supplied to him with the show cause notice. Therefore, he sought four weeks’ time to procure the documents under RTI. However, vide memorandum dated 23.08.2014 (Annexure P-6), the appointment order issued in favour ofH the petitioner, vide memorandum dated 21.07.2014 was withdrawn/cancelled with immediate effect.

6. The petitioner has laid challenge to the said order on the groundst that the order passed by the respondents is non speaking and unreasoned and further no personal allegations