Himachal Pradesh High Court
Munish Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Others on 4 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:25807 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 5147 of 2020
Reserved on: 23.07.2025
Decided on: 04.08.2025
.
__________________________________________________________
Munish Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
__________________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge
1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
______________________________________________________
For the petitioner : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy
r Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2-HRTC.
Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur,
Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed
for grant of following substantive reliefs:
"1) That the list of 1078 finally selected candidates
against 1300 advertised posts of Transport Multi-
Purpose Assistant (TMPA) on the basis of merit of total
marks obtained in written test held on 17.09.2017
(Annexure A-6), final result of TMPA dated 10.05.2018
(Annexure A-7) declared by the Himachal Road
Transport Corporation and appointment letter of
respondent No.3 issued on 14.06.2018 (Annexure A-8)
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
whereby General BPL candidates who were included
in category of general category may kindly be quashed
and set-aside.
2. That the respondents may be directed to redraw the
.
result of Transport Multipurpose Assistants category
wise by placing the sub-category candidates in their
respective categories and replacing them with other
candidates falling in order of merit from 3816
candidates who had qualified the written test.
3. That the respondents be directed to give appointment
to the applicant against the post of Transport
Multipurpose Assistant (General Category)."
2. The petitioner has shown his grievance against
the selection of 1078 Transport Multi- Purpose Assistants
(for short, "TMPA") in the selection process held by the 2nd
respondent, Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation
(for convenience hereafter referred to as HRTC) in the year
2017-2018.
3. The case as set-up by the petitioner is that 1000
posts of TMPA were advertised by HRTC vide advertisement
dated 03.08.2017, however, the number of posts were
increased to 1300 by way of a corrigendum issued in that
behalf.
4. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The
written test was held on 17.09.2017. Petitioner found his
3 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
name in the shortlisted candidates at serial No. 713. He was
called for verification of the documents on 13.10.2017 at
Taradevi, Shimla.
.
5. The petitioner had secured 71 marks in the
written examination and 6.41 marks in document
evaluation and thus the aggregate of marks secured by the
petitioner was 77.41.
6.
Respondent No.2 issued list of 1078 finally
selected candidates but the name of the petitioner did not
find place.
7. The main allegation of the petitioner is that the
official-respondents had violated the norms of maintaining
the ratio of reserved category candidates. According to
petitioner, the candidates with horizontal reservation were
selected against the posts of general category, which was
impermissible in law.
8. The petitioner has impleaded private respondent
No.3 as respondent on the allegation that though he
belongs to general BPL category, but had been selected
against general category.
4 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
9. Respondents have raised an objection that after
voluntary and conscious participation in the selection
process, petitioner was not entitled to maintain the petition.
.
10. The official respondents by way of their reply,
have specifically denied the allegations levelled by the
petitioner. It has been submitted that the entire selection
process had been conducted in a transparent and fair
manner by duly constituted selection committee and further
that the appointments made to the post of TMPA were
strictly in accordance with the instructions issued by the
Government, from time to time, more specifically, the
instructions circulated vide notification dated 17.04.2017.
11. The respondents have also taken a stand that the
petitioner did not achieve the cut off merit and as such was
not selected. The candidates in general category were
selected purely on the basis of their respective merits.
12. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply. In
addition to the reiteration of the averments in the petition,
the petitioner has raised an altogether new and distinct
ground. Petitioner has submitted that he had secured 77.41
marks (71 written + 6.41 evaluation). The break-up of the
5 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
marks awarded to petitioner in evaluation revealed that two
marks were awarded to him as BPL candidate. On such
basis, petitioner then raised a claim that he should be
.
considered as a general BPL category candidate and since,
the cut off merit in said category was lower, he should be
offered appointment. It has also been submitted that the
vacancies still existed with respondent No.2 in the cadre of
TMPA and directions could be issued to the said respondent
to appoint the petitioner.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the records of the case carefully.
14. The fact as have emerged from the record, is that
the petitioner had applied as general category candidate.
His application was not as General BPL category candidate.
Though, the petitioner in the entire body of the petition has
not mentioned such fact, but it becomes evident from the
documents relied upon by the petitioner. The call letter
issued to petitioner by the HRTC regarding
evaluation/verification of documents has been placed on
record as Annexure A-3, which clearly reflects the category
of petitioner as 'General'. Similarly, the list of candidates
6 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
shortlisted for evaluation/ verification finds the name of
petitioner at serial No. 713 and again the category is
mentioned as 'General'.
.
15. In order to succeed in the petition, it was
incumbent upon the petitioner to establish that the merit of
general category candidates was disturbed by adjusting the
candidates with horizontal reservation in the posts reserved
for general category candidates and further by such
disturbance, the petitioner was pushed back to such an
extent that he was ousted from the select list. In other
words, the petitioner had to show that in case his allegation
of adjustment of candidates claiming horizontal reservation
was established and the list of candidates in general
category was prepared, he would secure the merit.
16. In terms of order dated 20.08.2024 passed by
this Court, the HRTC has undertaken an exercise to review
the merit and it is revealed that the cut off marks for
general category candidates, after such review, would be
78.43.
17. Thus, on one hand, petitioner had not been able
to establish existence of any individual cause of action in
7 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
his favour, on the other hand, the review of merit by the
HRTC has otherwise also made the claim of petitioner
untenable.
.
18. It cannot be ignored that the petitioner could
succeed in the petition in case he was able to establish
violation of his individual right. Having failed to do so, the
petitioner cannot be allowed to rake up the issue of alleged
maladjustment, of
candidates claiming
reservation, in the quota for general category candidates as
r horizontal
a public interest litigation. It is settled that public interest
litigation in service matters is not permissible.
19. Coming to the ground raised by the petitioner by
way of rejoinder, the petitioner cannot succeed on said
ground also for the reasons, firstly, that no such ground
was taken in the original petition and secondly, the
petitioner having applied as a general category candidate
could not be allowed to change his category subsequently. It
appears that though the petitioner had applied as general
category candidate but at the time of evaluation of
documents he submitted BPL certificate for which two
marks were allotted to him. This by itself will not be
8 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
sufficient to convert the category of petitioner, although, he
may be belonging to BPL category. Once he had applied
under the general category, the same cannot be allowed to
.
be changed, specifically in absence of any rule permitting
such change.
20. The learned counsel for petitioner has placed
reliance upon the proposition that even if the certificate
evidencing BPL category was not submitted alongwith the
application, its subsequent submission was not barred. He
relied upon the judgment passed by a division bench of this
Court on 1.5.2024 in CWP 3938 of 2023 titled Pushp Mala
vs Registrar General Himachal Pradesh High Court. Though
the proposition in principle cannot be disputed, yet the
petitioner will not be able to derive any benefit therefrom
because the said principle or proposition would apply where
the candidate had applied in a particular category and it
was the certificate of that very category only, which had
been omitted from submission. Where the candidate seeks
change of his category, the above principle cannot have
application for the simple reason that it will amount to
granting unfair advantage to such a candidate by
9 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
entertaining his application in two separate categories
simultaneously.
21. The petitioner also placed reliance on a judgment
.
passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 2.2.2024 in Civil
Appeal No. 1 of 2024 titled Vashist Narayan Kumar Vs The
State of Bihar and others, where the benefit of subsequent
submission of certificate was allowed, but again the
petitioner cannot be benefited for the reason that in the
facts of said case the petitioner therein had taken a plea
that he had uploaded his application from a cyber café and
it was on account of inadvertent fault that an omission
remained in submission of complete information. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court believing such contention to be true
and also finding that deviation was trivial had allowed the
candidate to make good the deficiency at subsequent stage.
22. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper
on behalf of the petitioner that the submission of
application under general BPL category was result of
mistake or inadvertence. Rather, as noticed above, the
petitioner had not even mentioned, in the entire body of the
petition, the category in which he had applied. Thus, the
10 ( 2025:HHC:25807 )
petitioner cannot be allowed to take benefit of aforesaid
judgment which has been passed in its peculiar facts.
23. The petitioner having failed to establish his case
.
on merit, is not entitled to any relief. In result, the petition
is dismissed.
24. The petition stands accordingly disposed of, so
also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
4th August, 2025
(GR)
r to (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
