Ankush Versus State of H.P.

and others a/w connected matters

Ex. Petition (T) No.14 of 2024 a/w

.
Ex. Petition (T) Nos.15 & 109 of 2024,

.P
Ex. Petition Nos.130, 132, 133, 134,
136, 137, 145, 237, 378, 380, 465,
553, 625 and 698 of 2024

H
25.07.2024 Present: Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal and Mr. Vivek

of
Thakur, Advocates, for the petitioners in
Ex. Petition(T) Nos.14 & 15 of 2024,
Ex. Petition Nos.130, 132, 133, 134,
rt 136, 137, 145, 237, 465 and 553 of
2024.
ou
Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate, for the
petitioner in Ex. Petition(T) No.109 of
2024.
C

Mr. Parv Sharma and Mr. Shekhar

Badola, Advocates, for the petitioners
in Ex. Petition Nos.378 and 380 of 2024.
h

Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Sohail Khan, Advocate, for the
ig

petitioners in Ex. Petition No.625 of

2024.
H

Mr. Abhimanyu Rathor, Advocate, for

the petitioner in Ex. Petition No.698 of
2024.

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General,

with Mr. Ramakant Sharma,
Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta and Mr. Sushant
Keprate, Additional Advocates General,
for respondents No.1 and 3-State, in all
the petitions.

Mr. Dikken Kumar, Ms. Suchitra Sen,

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Motta, Mr. Rajinder
Thakur and Mr. Angrez Kapoor,
Advocates, for respondent No.2-
H.P. Staff Selection Commission [now
Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan
Aayog], in all the petitions.

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 Ex. Petition (T) No.14 of 2024 a/w
Ex. Petition (T) Nos.15 of 2024 & 109

.
of 2024, Ex. Petition Nos.130, 132,

.P
133, 134, 136, 137, 145, 237, 378,
380, 465, 553, 625 and 698 of 2024

H
In these Execution Petitions, issue

related to the process of recruitment to the post of

of
Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology) [in
rt
short JOA(IT)] is involved.

2. Firstly, vide Advertisement No. 30 of

ou
2015, on the basis of requisition sent by the State/

Department, the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection

C

Commission had initiated the process for recruitment

h

to the post of JOA(IT) by allotting Code 447 to the

ig

post. During said process, a dispute arose regarding

the determination of eligibility with reference to one

H

of essential qualification prescribed for the post in

R&P Rules 2014 framed for the recruitment to the

post of JOA(IT) which reads as under:-

“One year Diploma in Computer Science/

Compute Application/Information Technology
from a recognized University/ Institution.”

3. On approaching by one set of

candidates, claiming them eligible, the Erstwhile H.P.

State Administrative Tribunal had permitted them to

participate in the process provisionally. During the

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 pendency of petition, High Level Equivalence

.
Committee was formed by the State and on the basis

.P
of the reports submitted by the said Committee, on

H
21.8.2017 the State Government directed the

Commission to go ahead with recruitment process in

of
terms of decision taken by Equivalence Committee.

The aforesaid decision was subsequently approved by

rt
the Cabinet vide order dated 18.9.2017.
ou
4. During the interregnum another

Advertisement dated 18.10.2016 was issued by the

C

Commission on the basis of requisition sent by the

h

State Government/Department to fill-up the same

ig

post i.e. JOA(IT) with the Post Code 556. During this

recruitment process also, it was clarified by the

H

State/Department vide communication dated

19.3.2018 sent to the Commission, that eligibility of

candidates was to be determined on the basis of

report of Equivalence Committee as clarification

earlier issued vide communication dated 21.8.2017.

5. Vide Advertisement dated 21.9.2020,

another process for recruitment to the same post

(Post Code 817) was initiated by the Commission on

the basis of requisition sent by the State

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 Government/Department. Some posts at the time of

.
closure of recruitment process initiated vide

.P
Advertisement dated 18.10.2016 with Post Code 556,

H
remained unfilled. Those posts were also included in

the Advertisement dated 21.9.2020.

of
6. Before initiation of the recruitment

process vide Advertisement dated 21.09.2020, R&P

rt
Rules were modified and essential qualification in
ou
reference was modified by omitting the essential

qualification in reference with following essential

C

qualification:-
h

“(a) ESSENTIAL QUALIFICATION(S):

(i) Should have passed 10+2 from a
ig

recognized Board of School

Education/University.
OR
Matriculation from recognized Board of
H

School Education with one/two year’s

Diploma/Certificate from an Industrial
Training Institute (ITI) in Information
Technology Enabled Sectors (ITES) as
notified by Director General of
Employment & Training (Govt. of India)
from time to time or three years Diploma
in Computer Engineering/Computer
Science/IT from Polytechnic as approved
by All India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE).”

7. Petitioners herein in these Execution

Petitions had applied to the post in reference

advertised through second Advertisement No. 32-3/

2016 dated 18.10.2016 with Code 556 [JOA(IT)].

During this process, vide Notification dated

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 23.9.2019 final result on the basis of objective test

.
etc. was declared by the Commission wherein names

.P
of petitioners were not there amongst selected

H
candidates. On enquiry, they were informed that

their applications were rejected for want of valid

of
qualification for the purpose of appointment to the

post in reference. The said rejection was assailed by

rt
petitioners by filing Original Application(s) before the
ou
Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, which

on abolition of Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative

C

Tribunal, were registered as CWPOA. One such

h

CWPOA No.20 of 2019 came for consideration before

ig

learned Single Judge and on the basis of material on

record, learned Single Judge had held that act of

H

respondents-Commission declaring the petitioners to

be ineligible for consideration to the post in issue was

highly arbitrary and bad with observation that there

was no material placed on record by the Commission

to substantiate that diplomas possessed by the

petitioners or the Institutions from which diplomas

have been gained by petitioners are either bad or

not recognized especially when the respondents-

Commission was in possession of diplomas of

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 petitioners. The CWPOA No. 20 of 2019 was allowed

.
on 19.03.2021 with following operative portion:-

.P
“14. In these circumstances, the act of the
respondent-Commission of holding the

H
petitioners to be ineligible for consideration
to the post in issue, is highly arbitrary.

15. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed to

the extent that rejection of the candidature

of
of petitioners by respondent-Commission is
held to be bad and respondent-Commission
is directed to reassess the candidature of
petitioners, for the post in issue on the basis
rt of merit secured by them in the recruitment
process. In case, the petitioners are eligible
for appointment, then the same be offered to
them against unfilled/vacant post, without
ou
disturbing the appointed candidates…….”

8. Other similar petitions were also decided

C

on the same line. The judgments in some cases were

assailed by Commission/State by filing LPAs,

h

whereas in some cases no LPA was preferred. Some

ig

LPAs preferred by Commission/State were dismissed

H

vide judgment dated 31.12.2021 passed by

Division Bench in CWP No. 3894 of 2021 titled Reena

Kumari vs. State of HP and others with connected

matters. Thereafter, pending CWPOAs and LPAs were

decided in terms of judgment dated 31.12.2021

passed in Reena Kumari’s case.

9. It is apt to record that there was another

set of petitioners who, being aggrieved by process/

criteria adopted by the respondent-Commission to

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 determine the eligibility on the basis of above referred

.
unamended essential qualification provided in R&P

.P
Rules 2014, had approached the Court and writ

H
petitions preferred by them were also connected with

aforesaid Reena Kumari’s case. All those petitions/

of
LPAs were related to recruitment process initiated by

the Commission to the post of JOA(IT) under Code

rt
447 in the year 2015 and under Code 556 in the year
ou
2016.

10. The Division Bench, in its common

C

judgment dated 31st December, 2021 had passed

h

following directions:-
ig

“33. Thus, the HPSSC is directed to re-cast the

merit list for JOA 556 by including all
categories of candidate as was done for
JOA 447 on the basis of decision of
H

Government dated 21.8.2017/18.9.2017

and further made applicable to JOA 556
vide communication 19.3.2018 except the
candidates with higher qualification, who
have already been held ineligible vide
judgment dated 29.8.2019 of a Division
Bench of this Court in CWP 161/2019.
These selections for JOA 556 shall be
made by taking into account the entire
number of vacancies advertised for JOA
556 and the decision of the
Government/HPSSC to close the selection
procedure for JOA 556 is set aside and
quashed.

34. Since the Common R&P Rules stand

amended by 2020 Rules and the cause of
persistent confusion for the time being
appears to have been removed, as a
necessary consequence selection for JOA
817 shall take place in accordance with
2020 Rules, however, the selection process
shall not include the selection for posts
which were left over from advertised posts

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 of JO 556 as the said posts have already
been directed to be filled through selection

.
process of JOA 556.

.P
35. In view of above discussion and directions,
all the petitions considered herein are
decided accordingly.”

H
11. LPAs 41/2021, 42/2021, 43/2021,

of
62/2021, 63/2021,64,2021,70/2021, 71/2021,

117/2021 to 126/2021 filed by HPSSC or/and the

rt
State Government were also dismissed, vide above

referred common judgment dated 31.12.2021 and the

ou
judgments passed by learned Single Judge were

upheld subject to modification that directions issued

C

in said judgments shall be read in consonance with

h

the directions issued hereinabove by this Court.

ig

12. Aforesaid judgment dated 31st

December, 2021 was assailed by one Ankita Thakur

H

by the selected and appointed candidates which was

decided by the Supreme Court vide judgment dated

9th November, 2023 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7602

of 2023 (@SLP(C) No. 730/2022) titled Ankita Thakur

vs. HP Staff Selection Commission along with

connected Civil Appeals No. 7603 of 2023 (@SLP (C)

No.729/2022), 7604 of 2023 (@SLP (C)

No.4321/2022), 7605 of 2023 (@SLP (C)

No.9977/2022) and 7606 of 2023 (@SLP(C)

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 No.17676/2022). Operative portion of said judgment

.
reads as under:

.P
“44. Upon consideration of the rival
submissions and having regard to: (a) that

H
appointments were made after taking
written and computer typing test of the
candidates; (b) that there is no specific
allegation of nepotism or mala fides in

of
making such appointments; (c) that nature
of the post does not require a high degree
of technical skill; (d) the length of period
during which the appointments have
rt continued; and (e) that there is no clarity
whether such appointees were duly served
with notice of the proceeding before the
High Court, or whether a specific challenge
ou
was laid to their eligibility individually, we
are of the considered view that even if such
appointments were made taking aid of the
relaxation order dated 21.08.2017, it
would not be in the interest of justice to
C

disturb those appointments made under

the first advertisement (Post Code 447). As
regards adjustment of the appellants (i.e.,
petitioners in SLP (C) No. 4321 of 2022)
h

against vacancies that might have arisen

subsequent to appointment against the
advertised vacancies is concerned, in our
ig

view, it would not be appropriate as those

vacancies would have to be filled after a
fresh advertisement and in accordance
with the extant Rules.
H

45. In light of the aforesaid discussion and

conclusion, we direct/order as under:

“(i) The relaxation/clarificatory order

dated 21.08.2017, as approved by
the State cabinet on 18.09.2017,
being after the last date fixed by the
advertisements dated 13.02.2015
(i.e., for Post Code 447) and dated
18.10.2016 (for Post Code 556) for
receipt of applications from
candidates, is not legally sustainable
qua those posts (i.e., Post Codes
447 and 556), particularly, when no
opportunity was afforded to similarly
placed persons, who might have been
left out, to apply and compete with
those candidates who, though not
eligible as per the terms of
the advertisement, had applied
thereunder;

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 (ii) The direction(s) contained in
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the

.
impugned judgment of the High

.P
Court setting aside the closure of the
selection process for Post Code 556
and to re-cast the merit list as
well as fill up remaining posts of

H
Post Code 556, with the aid
of relaxation/clarification dated
21.08.2017/18.09.2017 read with
communication dated 19.03.2018,

of
after segregating it from those
advertised as Post Code 817, are set
aside. In consequence, (a) the merit
list prepared under the second
advertisement for Post Code 556
rt shall not be re-drawn by including
such candidates who, though
not eligible, became eligible pursuant
ou
to relaxation/clarificatory order
dated 21.08.2017/18.09.2017 read
with communication dated
19.03.2018; and (b) there shall be
no segregation of seats advertised
C

under the third advertisement dated

21.09.2020 for Post Code 817. Thus,
recruitment for Post Code 817 shall
be strictly in accordance with the
h

extant Rules (i.e., 2020 Rules), as

notified.
ig

(iii) The appointments already made

under the first advertisement (for
Post Code 447) shall not be disturbed
merely because some of the
H

appointees may have gained

eligibility based on the order of
relaxation/clarification dated
21.08.2017, which was approved by
the State cabinet.

46. All the appeals are disposed of in the

aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if
any, are also disposed of. There is no order
as to costs.”

13. Petitioners had and have approached

this Court by filing these Execution Petitions with

claim that judgment passed by learned Single Judge

directing the Commission to re-assess the

candidature of petitioners on the basis of merit

10

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 secured by them in the recruitment process related to

.
the Post Code 556, which was affirmed by the

.P
Division Bench vide judgment dated 31st December,

H
2021 has not been interfered with or modified by the

Supreme Court, and further that issue involved in

of
other petitions filed with reference to essential

qualification referred supra contained in Rules 2014

rt
was related to determination of candidature with
ou
reference to report of Equivalence Committee and

thus the direction of learned Single Judge, affirmed

C

by Division Bench, has neither been assailed nor

h

interfered by the Supreme Court and, therefore,

ig

direction to re-assess their candidature on the basis

of merits secured by them is in existence and

H

enforceable and, therefore, it has been prayed that

respondents-Commission be directed to re-asses the

candidature of petitioners and in case they are found

eligible and in merit, appointment be offered to them

against the vacancies advertised in the year 2016

with Post Code 556.

14. It is the claim of petitioners that

judgment passed by learned Single Judge in their

favour was upheld by the Division Bench with

11

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 modification that same shall be subject to directions

.
passed by the Division Bench in judgment dated 31st

.P
December, 2021 and the Supreme Court vide

H
judgment dated 9th November, 2023 passed in Civil

Appeal No. 7602 of 2023 and connected appeals has

of
not disturbed the findings and directions passed by

learned Single Judge but has only set aside the

rt
directions passed by the Division Bench in paras 33
ou
and 34 of the judgment dated 31st December, 2021

however without touching and disturbing the

C

direction passed by learned Single Judge to re-assess

h

the candidature of petitioners.

ig

15. It has been submitted that claim of

petitioners is not based on relaxation/clarificatory

H

order dated 21st August, 2017, which was approved

by the State Cabinet on 18.9.2017 and was reiterated

vide communication dated 19.3.2018 during the

process to fill-up the posts with Code 556. It has

been submitted that their claim is independent of

aforesaid relaxation/clarificatory order but against

the arbitrary rejection of their candidature without

affording them opportunity and considering the

ineligible candidates eligible to the Post Code 556

12

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 and, therefore, it has been prayed that Commission

.
be directed to re-assess the candidature of petitioners

.P
in terms of judgment passed by learned Single Judge.

H
16. Plea of the petitioners is that in their

matters there was and is no SLP preferred in these

of
cases and relief granted to them by learned Single

Judge, affirmed by the Division Bench was altogether

rt
different than the issue raised before the Supreme
ou
Court in Civil Appeal No. 7602 of 2023 and other

connected Civil Appeals.

C

17. It has been also submitted that as per

h

Advertisement dated 21.9.2020, vacancies notified

ig

under Code 817 are subject to increase or decrease

and, therefore, no one has vested right to claim

H

appointment by referring number of post as

mentioned in Advertisement or Corrigendum issued

subsequently as number advertised posts under

Code 817 has already altered by the State/

Commission by increasing and decreasing the same

by issuing Corrigendum on account of fresh

requisition and withdrawal of requisition by the

Department/State.

13

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 18. Some of the Execution Petitions, seeking

.
implementation of judgment passed by Learned

.P
Single Judge, directing the Commission to re-assess

H
the eligibility of the candidates, have been disposed of

by Learned Single Judge, directing to implement the

of
judgment within a period of 12 weeks. The said

direction has not been assailed by anyone.

rt Operate

portion of one of such order, passed in Execution

ou
Petition (T) No.2 of 2024, titled as Amit Kumar

Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reads as

C

under:-
h

“3. Having heard learned counsel for the

petitioner as also learned Advocate General
and learned counsel for respondent No.2, as
ig

now the State Government is bound to

implement the directions passed by this
Court, as affirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India in Para-45 of its judgment, therefore,
H

this Execution Petition is disposed of by

directing the respondents to implement the
same within a period of twelve weeks. In
case, needful is not done, then the petitioner
shall be at liberty to file an application for
revival of these proceedings. Pending
miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of.”

19. In aforesaid backdrop, after hearing the

parties for considerable time as agreed in order to

resolve the issue involved in present petitions, it is

considered appropriate that Himachal Pradesh Rajya

Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur, shall reassess the

eligibility of the Execution Petitioners, in whose

14

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 favour, there is judgment passed by Learned Single

.
Judge to reassess the eligibility along with merit, by

.P
giving them opportunity of personal hearing on

H
27.07.2024 and decide the same by passing a

speaking and reasoned order and thereafter report of

of
such exercise be placed before this Court on

30.07.2024. rt
20. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all
ou
Execution Petitions, pending or decided, have

undertaken to ensure presence of the Execution

C

Petitioners in the Office of Administrative Officer of

h

Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur,

ig

on 27.07.2024 at 11:00 a.m.

21. In case, some candidate(s) for valid

H

reasons, is/are unable to attend the Office of

Administrative Officer of the Himachal Pradesh

Rajya Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur, on aforesaid date,

he/she may appoint/authorize in writing someone

else to attend the Office along with original

certificates of the petitioners on that day.

22. At this stage, it has been informed that

some Writ Petitions filed in the year 2019 along with

the already decided matters, to which present

15

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 Execution Petitions relate, are pending adjudication.

.
In case in aforesaid writ petitions, identical claim and

.P
issue is involved and petitioners herein have

H
approached the Court immediately after their

rejection within reasonable time, then, Himachal

of
Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur, shall on

approaching by such candidate(s) on the aforesaid

rt
date already fixed hereinabove, to re-assess their
ou
eligibility also in terms of direction passed by Learned

Single Judge, in order to ensure finality of the

C

dispute/lis in present litigation.

h

23. It has also been submitted that some

ig

similar Execution Petitions filed to implement

identical direction, which are pending, have not been

H

listed today before this Court. Petitioners in all such

Execution Petitions, being similarly situated shall be

given same treatment by the Himachal Pradesh Rajya

Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur, on approaching the Aayog

on aforesaid date.

24. It is clarified that aforesaid

re-assessment of candidature shall be done with

respect to only those candidates, who had or have

filed writ petitions/Execution Petitions, which are

16

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS

 either pending or have been disposed of by this

.
Court.

.P
25. Needless to say that eligibility is to be

H
assessed on the basis of documents already on

record with Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog

of
and no document, which is not on record of the

Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, has to be

rt
taken into consideration.
ou
26. List on 30.07.2024.
C

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

Judge
h

(Ranjan Sharma)
ig

Judge
July 25, 2024
[Bhardwaj]
H

17

::: Downloaded on - 26/07/2024 18:16:44 :::CIS