2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 3186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JIYA LAL BHARDWAJ
Rajesh Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CWPOA/1842/2019

Eligibility for candidate quotas is determined as of the application deadline; subsequent regularization does not retroactively confer eligibility. Furthermore, Article 14 does not support negative parity, meaning wrongful benefits granted to others cannot be claimed as a right.

Headnote:(A) CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 - Termination of service - Constitution of India - Article 14 - Negative equality - Eligibility for Post Graduate medical courses - Candidates applied as direct candidates and did not fulfill requisite qualifying service as of the application deadline - Subsequent regularization does not confer eligibility for in-service quota - Failure to resign from previous assignment upon selection as direct candidates as required by prospectus constitutes a violation of mandatory conditions - State is competent to recall erroneous orders and terminate services upon discovery of ineligibility. (Paras 16, 18, 20)

(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Issuance of show cause notice - Necessity of regular inquiry - Where a show cause notice is issued and the employee does not dispute the core facts of ineligibility in the reply, a regular formal inquiry is not a prerequisite for termination of service. (Para 22)

(C) Article 14 - Negative Parity - A person cannot claim the benefit of an illegality or a wrong decision made in other similar cases - Equality is a positive concept and cannot be used to perpetuate a mistake or fraud committed in favor of other individuals. (Paras 25, 29)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who were appointed as medical officers on a contract basis, applied for postgraduate courses as direct candidates. Despite not meeting the qualifying service criteria (regular appointment and specific rural/tribal service duration) by the application deadline and not resigning from their posts upon selection, they were erroneously treated as in-service candidates and granted financial benefits. Upon a subsequent review, it was found that they were ineligible. The state issued show cause notices and subsequently terminated their services from the date they joined the courses, ordering the recovery of benefits.

Findings of Court:
The court found that eligibility under the prospectus is determined as of the last date of application. The petitioners failed to satisfy these conditions and had misrepresented their status to obtain in-service benefits. The termination of services under the applicable service rules was held to be legal and justified.

Issues: Whether regularization after the application deadline grants in-service eligibility; whether a full departmental inquiry is mandatory when ineligibility is admitted or not denied; and whether the petitioners could claim parity based on benefits wrongly granted to others.

Ratio Decidendi: Eligibility for quotas is fixed by the criteria present on the application cut-off date. Article 14 does not envisage negative equality, meaning a wrong decision in one case cannot create a legal right for others to receive the same wrong benefit. Natural justice is satisfied if the party is given an opportunity to reply to a show cause notice, especially when factual ineligibility is not disputed.

Result: Petitions dismissed.