SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


2026:HHC:16270


CWP No. 6336 of 2023


Baby Rani …….Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents


For the petitioner u: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate Generalfor respondent No. 1.: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2.


Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.


Decided on: 12.05.2026


(Ajay Mohan Goel)


Judge


May 12, 2026


(narender)

Petitioner Advocates:Tara Singh Chauhan Surya Chauhan Urvashi Rajta ,Respondent Advocate: AG Vikrant Thakur

##PAGE1##

2026:HHC:16270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 6336 of 2023 Decided on: 12.05.2026

Baby Rani …….Petitioner

Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Moha n Goel, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________

For the petitioner u: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General

for respondent No. 1.

: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) That a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment in pursuance to Annexure P-4 and as per rules per rule ix of

respondent No.2, may be issued.

ii) That a time-bound direction may be given to respondent No. 2 to send the sponsor the name of the petitioners

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:12:18 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2026:HHC:16270 forthwith.”

2. The issue involved in this case is in a very narrow compass. Process was initiated by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission to fill up ceortain posts of Assistant District Attorneys. In terms of the sa id process, 24 posts of Assistant District Attorneys were to be filled in, including one post reserved for Scheduled Caste catuegory. The petitioner applied for the post under

the said category.

3. In terms of the final result declared by the Authorities, one Ms. Babita Dhiman was selected against the Scheduled Caste category candidate. According to the petitioner, she was next in merit as far as Scheduled Caste category candidates were concerned. 4. Her grievance is that after the name of Ms. Babita

HDhiman was recommended by the Public Service Commission to the employer and appointment was offered to her, Ms. Babita Dhiman joined the post and thereafter tendered her resignation. Thereafter, the petitioner staked her claim to be appointed against the said post,

but appointment has not been offered to her.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that it is not in dispute that petitioner was No. 2 in the order of merit after Ms. Babita Dhiman as far as Scheduled Caste

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:12:18 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

2026:HHC:16270

candidates are concerned. He submitted that it is a matter of record that Ms. Babita Dhiman, after joining the post, tendered her resignation and vacated the post. He submitted that therefore the act of the respondents of not offering the post to the candidate who is next in line of merit is no t sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that a mandamus be issued to the respondents, directing them to offer the unfilled post to

the present petoitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the Public Service Commission referred to the reply filed by the Commission and submitted that in thhe present case, it is not as if the selected candidate did not join the post in issue and the post remained unfilled. He submitted that after the name of the Ms. Babita Dhiman was recommended by the Public Service Commission, she was offered appointment. She joined the post on the basis of said appointment letter but later tendered her resignation. Learned Counsel submitted that above facts demonstrate that it is not as if the seat remained unfilled. It was occupied by the selected candidate and thus the post stood exhausted. He submitted that the subsequent resignation tendered by the selected candidate is of no help to the petitioner because once the seat stood exhausted, as per rule, it could not be offered to the

::: Downloaded on - 19/05/2026 01:12:18 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

2026:HHC:16270

next candidate in merit as per the earlier process. Learned Counsel also referred to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top