##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CWP No.6949 of 2026

th

Decided on 15 May, 2026

Dimple

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

1

Whether approved for reporting? Yes

For the petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional

Advocate General.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

alia, prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That in view of the above mentioned facts

i and circumstances, the present writ petition

H 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.

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 22:24:47 :::CIS

2

(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 petitioner is thaHt 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 to

the petitioner under the head of experience.

3. Learneod counsel for the petitioner has drawn the

attention of tChe 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 granting

the marks to the petitioner under the head of experience.

H 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 issued

to the petitioner by the Authority.

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 22:24:47 :::CIS

3

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 the

Court.

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 been

ignore d.

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

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 22:24:47 :::CIS

4

the Authority to grant any marks to the petitioner under the

head 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.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge

May 15, 2026

(Vinod)

::: Downloaded on - 20/05/2026 22:24:47 :::CIS