Whether approved for reporting? Yes

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

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

(i) That in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, the present writ petition may kindly be allowed and the appointment and selection of respondent No.5 as Para Pump Operator contained in Annexure P-6 dated 17.01.2026 may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(ii) That respondents No.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to offer appointment to the present petitioner as Para Pump Operator in Jal Shakti Vibhag, Thunga, Tehsil Thunga, District Mandi, H.P., by issuing a writ of mandamus.

(iii) That respondents No.1 to 4 may kindly be directed to give seniority to the petitioner from the date when four posts of Para Pump Operators were filled by issuing a writ of mandamus.”

2. The grievance of the petitioneHr is that the petitioner participated in the process for appointment against the post of Pump Operator, which post was advertised vide Annexure P-1, and the private respondent stands appointed in terms of Annexure P-6, solely on account of non-grant of the marks tothe petitioner under the head of experience.

3. Loearned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attentiCon of the Court to the documents appended with the writ petition and by referring to Annexure P-3 he submitted that this document was ignored by the Selection Authority for grantingthe marks to the petitioner under the head of experience.

4. On a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to where is the experience certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the Competent Authority, which purportedly stood ignored by the Selection Committee, learned counsel submits that no such experience certificate was issuedto the petitioner by the Authority.

5. Thereafter, on a query put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to where is that application, in terms whereof, any experience certificate was sought by the petitioner from the Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy theCourt.

6. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner neither applied for any experience certificate nor appended or submitted the same before the Authority concerned and it is only after the private respondent was selected, the petitioner has filed this petition on the concocted plea that his experience has beenigno red.

7. In the considered view of this Court, filing of this petition is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law. In the absence of any experience certificate submitted by the petitioner to the Selection Committee, the Selection Committee was not obliged to grant any experience marks to the petitioner. Annexure P-3, which is the copy of daily attendance, does not suffice the purpose. In the absence of the petitioner furnishing any experience certificate, obviously, there was no occasion for the Authority to grant any marks to the petitioner under thehead of experience.

8. In light of the above observations, this petition stands dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications,if any.

9. Though the Court was inclined to impose cost upon the petitioner for filing frivolous litigation, but, on the request of Mr. G.R. Palsra, the Court has refrained itself from doing so.