G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

Petitioners seek quashing of the final result for the posts of Translators which is in favour of the private respondents No. 2 to 4, who were appointed as such from the posts of Junior Assistants, which order dated 07.07.2023 (Annexure P.10/A) was made subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. Similarly, a prayer has also been

made challenging the final result for the posts of Translators dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure P-10), whereby the petitioners were shown as not selected on account of the fact that they already stood promoted as Senior Assistants. The relief thus claimed is that a direction be issued by this Court for re-drawing the final result after declaring the petitioners as eligible for the posts of Translators, as per the amended writ petition.

2. As per the reply filed by respondent No. 1, petitioners were not selected as Translators on the ground that they already stood promoted as Senior Assistants which is a post having equivalent grade pay to that of Translator. It is thus the stand of respondent No. 1 that by staking a claim to the post of Translator, the petitioners ought to have refused promotion to the post of Senior Assistants and the same is also hit by the principle of estoppel. The Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and the Members of Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Conditions of Service, Conduct & Appeal) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter called as the ‘R&P Rules’) provided that there is a requirement to occupy a class-III post with a grade pay lesser than that of a Translator. Thus,

it is the stand of respondent No. 1 that the status of the candidates on the date of selection must be within the contours of the aforesaid Rule and during the pendency of the recruitment process, petitioners stood promoted and appointed to the posts having equivalent grade pay to that of a Translator. The post in question being a selection post and 50% of the same had to be filled up by way of selection and the petitioners had rendered themselves ineligible by accepting the promotion to the higher grade pay during the selection process. As such the petitioners could not be allowed to take advantage of their promotion as well as seek consideration for appointment as Translators. The pleadings that the last date of possessing the eligibility was the cut off date, was accordingly rebutted that on an ineligibility disqualification is invited and they are not entitled for selection to the posts of Translators and they having changed their position out of their own volition by accepting the promotion entailing higher grade pay, they could not claim appointment as such to the posts of Translators.

3. It is in such circumstances, the argument has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners had a right to appear for the posts of Translators and therefore, they should have been put on an option as such at the stage of promotion and reliance was placed upon the judgment in Kameshwar Singh Dhaulta and others versus State of HP and others, 2011 SCC OnLine HP 1078 in this context. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and others versus Chander Shekhar and another (1997) 4 SCC 18 and Bhupinderpal Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others (2000) 5 SCC 262 and similarly in the case of Shankar K. Mandal and others versus State of Bihar and others (2003) 9 SCC 519 in support of the said principles of law that the eligibility is to be seen at the time of application or cut off date.

4. The learned Senior Counsel thus has argued that at the time of interview, the case of the petitioners could not have been rejected for consideration only on account of the fact that they have been promoted as Senior Assistants and the action of respondent No.1 was not justified whereby

while drawing up the result, no marks were given to the petitioners in the interview, though they have been called for the said process.

5. The learned Senior Couns