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

2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA


2026:HHC:20085


LPA No.316 of 2026


State of H.P & anr. ..Appe.llants Versus Suneel Kumar & Ors. ..Respondents


For the Appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, oAdditional Advocate General.

For the reCspondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for proforma respondent No.3.


Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. San dhawalia, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge


Decided on: 21.05.2026


(G.S. Sandhawalia)


Chief Justice


(Bipin Chander Negi)


Judge


May 21, 2026


(mamta)

Petitioner Advocates:AG Seema Sharma ,Respondent Advocate: DSGI

##PAGE1##

1

2026:HHC:20085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No.316 of 2026 Decided on: 21.05.2026

State of H.P & anr. ..Appe.llants Versus Suneel Kumar & Ors. ..Respondents

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. San dhawalia, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1

For the Appellants : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, oAdditional Advocate General.

For the reCspondents : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI, for proforma respondent No.3.

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice(Oral)

CMP(M) No.769 of 2026 i Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by the affidavit of the Director of Elementary Education, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, delay of 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The application stands disposed off

accordingly.

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

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 15:20:37 :::CIS

##PAGE2##

2

2026:HHC:20085

LPA No.316 of 2026

3. The present appeal filed by the appellants-

respondents No.1 and 2, arises out of the orderP passed by learned Single Judge in CWPOA No.6772 of 2020 on 04.11.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed.

4. Inter alia submits that the certificates issued by Higher Secondary Education Board, Delhi for Senior Secondary Examination 10+2 could not have been taken into consideration since the Board itself was registered firstly on 13.06.2014 (Annexure A-1) and thereafter communication dated 21.2.2018 (Annexure A-2) was also issuhed to the effect that Government of NCT of Delhi does

gnot have any Board on its own.

5. Reference is also made to the Advisory of HRD Ministry, dated 26.07.2019 (Annexure A-3) that one entity operating in the name of “Board of Higher Secondary Education, Delhi” is claiming to be a recognized Board of Education by this Ministry vide letter No.1812/2009/SKT-1 dated 29.06.2009 and D.O letter No.3-5/2013/Sch.3 dated 26.04.2013 and no such letters have ever been issued in favour of the so called

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 15:20:37 :::CIS

##PAGE3##

3

2026:HHC:20085

Board and both the letters are completely forged and

fabricated.

6. Reference is also made to the Plist of Boards/Universities/Bodies, which are not recognized by Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education for the purpose of admission to higher studies (Annexure A-4), in which the said Board was mentioned at Serial No.1

and 3.

7. It is thus contended that in the absence of the same, the learned Single Judge, as such, was not correct in sanctifying the said certificate. We however, find that the name of the ex-serviceman alongwith other candidates was nominated on 6th October, 2017 by the

gDirectorate of Sainik Welfare, H.P at Hamirpur (Annexure A-6).

8. It is also pertinent to mention that proforma respondent No.2-Sainik Welfare Department, Hamipur has supported the said certificate and submitted that the petitioner may be considered eligible for appointment to

the said post of Junior Office Assistant (IT).

9. Apparently, the learned Single Judge also noticed that on the basis of having qualification of matriculation, there was a graduation certificate issued

::: Downloaded on - 31/05/2026 15:20:37 :::CIS

##PAGE4##

4

2026:HHC:20085

to the said writ petitioner on 16.02.2015, who had put in 15 years service in the Army, and, therefore, it was the

specific case and claim in the Original AppPlication initially filed before the erstwhile Tribunal.

10. In such circumstances, even one of the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, to grant relief to give effect to the nomination without any arrears, cannot be held to be not without any basis. Thus we issue notice only on the limited issue of the certificate

issued by the Delhi Board.

11. Notice. Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears and accepts service of nothice on behalf of proforma respondent No.3-Union of

gIndia.

12. Counsel for the State has also made reference to the writ petition No.4814 of 2020, titled as Monica Sharma Vs S

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top