Himachal Pradesh High Court
_______________________________________________________ vs Himachal Pradesh State Electricity ... on 1 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.5759 of 2023
Reserved on: 23.06.2025
.
Date of Decision: 01.07.2025
_______________________________________________________
Yamini Rana .......Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors.
... Respondents
_______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Piyush Rathore, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No. 2.
Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No. 3.
____________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service
Selection Commission, Hamirpur (in short 'HPSSSC'), vide
advertisement No. 36-3/2020 dated 21.09.2020, invited applications
for filling up seven posts of Junior Draftsman (Civil) and 83 posts of
Junior Draftsman (Electrical), having Post Code-838 (Annexure P-1).
Petitioner herein, being fully eligible, applied for the aforesaid post.
Though 3477 candidates had applied, but only 2438 were found
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
eligible to participate in the objective test. Out of 2438 candidates,
1368 appeared in the screening test and 279 candidates, including
.
petitioner qualified the screening test. Thereafter, the final result was
declared on 22.06.2022, wherein out of 90 candidates, 89 candidates
were shown to be selected (Annexure P-2).
2. After declaration of the result of Junior Draftsman
(Electrical) by the HPSSSC, Hamirpur, waiting list of Junior Draftsman
(Civil & Electrical) Post Code-838 was also published and therein
petitioner was shown to be at serial No. 3 (Annexure P-3).
3. After receipt of recommendation from the respondent-
HPSSSC, the matter relating to appointment was processed and
considered by respondent-HPSEBL, who sent offer of appointment to
selected candidates, sponsored by HPSSSC.
4. Vide notification dated 21.02.2023, Government of
Himachal Pradesh abolished HPSSSC, Hamirpur and in furtherance
of afore notification, further action, if any, qua sponsoring the name of
successful candidates, who were in waiting list in the respective
categories was to be taken by the respondent No. 2 i.e. Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC). Though HPSSSC,
Hamirpur, sponsored the names of 82 candidates for the post of
Junior Draftsman (Electrical), vide letter dated 28.06.2023, but fact
remains that five seats of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) could not be
filled up due to various reasons and accordingly, HPSEBL, requested
respondent No. 2-HPPSC, Shimla, vide letter dated 12.06.2023
.
(Annexure RA-4), to sponsor the names of five selected candidates
from the select panel/merit list of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) against
Post Code-838 as per the break-up of the category wise posts.
5. Since aforesaid request made by the respondent-
HPSEBL was not paid any heed, respondent-HPSEBL took up the
matter with respondent No. 1 vide letter dated dated 26.09.2023
(Annexure RA-5) annexed with the reply filed by respondent No. 2.
Respondent No. 2 i.e. HPPSC responded to aforesaid letters, vide
letter dated 03.10.2023 and submitted that no relevant record
pertaining to the Post Code-838 has been ordered to be transferred to
the Commission by the Government and it is still in the custody of
OSD to erstwhile HP Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur. In the
afore background, respondent-HPSEBL, vide letter dated 07.10.2023
(Annexure RA-7), requested the OSD, HPSSC Hamirpur to sponsor
the name of five candidates from the select panel/merit list of Junior
Draftsman (Electrical) against Post Code-838, which instead of
sponsoring the names of five candidates from the select panel/waiting
list, apprised respondent-HPSEBL that further action to sponsor the
names from the select panel/waiting list is to be taken by the
respondent No. 2 against the respective categories.
6. In nutshell, case of the petitioner is that though five
vacancies had arisen, qua which candidates figuring in the select
.
panel/waiting list could be offered appointment, but on account of the
sheer negligence/miscommunication inter se respondent No. 2 & 3,
they were not offered appointment.
7. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that first candidate in the waiting list, Mr. Ankush Rana, was
recommended by the respondent-HPSSSC and has joined the
respondent-department vide Annexure P-4, while the second
candidate, namely Sikander Deen, having foregone the employment,
is not serving, therefore, the petitioner being next in line, is entitled to
be offered appointment.
8. While referring to Annexures P-4 & P-5, Mr. Chauhan,
learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that though petitioner
obtained information under RTI Act, which revealed that four posts of
Junior Draftsman remained vacant due to non-joining of selected
candidates, but on account of sheer negligence of respondents No. 2
& 3, petitioner as well as other similarly situated persons, whose
names were included in the waiting panel, were not offered
appointment.
9. Pleadings adduced on record by the petitioner further
reveals that after receipt of information under Right to Information Act,
the petitioner visited the office of respondent No. 1, who apprised her
that department has already written to the competent authority for
.
filling up the remaining three posts of Junior Draughtsman (Electrical),
but yet no action has been taken. Though before filing petition at
hand, petitioner made representation dated 19.07.2023 to the Hon'ble
Chief Minister and MD/Chairman, HPSEB (Annexure P-6), but no
action was taken to appoint the petitioner, as a result thereof,
petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings,
praying therein following main reliefs:-
"(i) That a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner to be appointed
for the post of Junior Draughtsman (Electrical) from the waiting
panel due to non-joining of selected candidates.
(ii) That respondent no.2 may be directed to recommend the name
of petitioner to respondent no.1 from the waiting list panel for
appointment as junior draftsman (electrical) forthwith."
10. Pursuant to the notices issued in the instant proceedings,
respondents No. 1 & 3 have filed reply, perusal thereof, in its entirety,
nowhere disputes facts as have been taken note hereinabove.
Respondent No. 1 has attempted to defeat the claim of the petitioner
on the pretext that action, if any, to fill up the unfilled posts was to be
taken by respondents No. 2 & 3. In this regard, respondent No. 3, in
its reply, has stated that on account of policy decision of the
Government, whereby respondent-HPSSSC was abolished, further
action, if any, pursuant to request made by the respondent-HPSEBL
was to be taken by the HP Public Service Commission. An attempt
.
has also been made by respondent No. 3 to defeat the claim of the
petitioner on the pretext that validity of the waiting panel for the post
of Junior Draftsman was one year from date of the recommendation,
which expired on 27.06.2023, much prior to the filing of present
petition and receipt of requisition dated 07.10.2023 for recommending
the candidate for appointment from the waiting penal and as such,
there is no cause of action in favour of the petitioner.
11. It is not in dispute that petitioner herein though had been
declared as a successful candidate in the selection process, but was
unable the find place in the merit list and as such, her name was kept
in the waiting list prepared at the time of declaration of result for filling
up the post of Junior Draftsman (Electrical) having Post Code-838. It
is also not in dispute, rather stands admitted by the respondents in
their reply that on account of non-joining of selected candidates, five
posts remained vacant and thereafter, respondent No. 1 repeatedly
sent communications to respondents No. 2 & 3, thereby requesting
them to forward the names of candidates from the waiting panel.
Name of Mr. Ankush Rana, who was in the waiting list, was
recommended by the respondent-HPSSSC and he subsequently
joined the respondent-Board (Annexure P-4) and second candidate
namely Mr. Sikander Deen, having forgone the employment, is not
serving, as a result thereof, petitioner, being next in line, became
.
entitled to appointment, but certainly on account of miscommunication
and confusion inter se respondent No. 2 & 3, she has not been
offered appointment till date.
12. Though in the case at hand, respondent No. 1 repeatedly
requested respondents No. 2 & 3 to forward the names of selected
candidates from the waiting penal, enabling it to fill up the vacant
posts, but respondent No.3, after issuance of notification dated
21.02.2023, whereby Government decided to abolish HPSSSC, was
unable to pursue the matter and thereafter, request was made by the
petitioner to respondent-HP Public Service Commission, which came
to be rejected on the pretext that record pertaining to Post Code-838
though has been ordered to be transferred to HP Public Service
Commission by the Government, but same is still in the custody of
OSD to erstwhile HP Staff Selection Commission Hamirpur (Annexure
RA-6) annexed with the reply filed by respondent No.1.
13. Though in the case at hand, respondent No.2 has not
filed reply, but Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the
respondent-Commission, stated that since validity of the waiting panel
for filling up the post in question stood expired before receipt of letter,
requesting therein to sponsor the names from the waiting panel, no
illegality can be said to have been committed by the Commission by
not sponsoring the name of the petitioner.
.
14. No doubt, vide notification dated 21.02.2023, notification
dated 06.10.1998, whereby Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission, Hamirpur was constituted, came to be rescinded, but if
the latter part of this notification is read, it certainly compels this Court
to agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that decision taken
with regard to things already done or omitted to be done before such
rescission, were required to be taken to their logical end by the
Commission. In this regard, it would be apt to take note of last para of
the aforesaid notification, which reads as under:
"Now, therefore, the Governor, Himachal Pradesh, is pleased to
hereby rescind the notification dated the 6th October, 1998 and
abolish the H.P. Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur except in
respects of the things done or omitted to be done before such
rescission, with immediate effect, in the public interest."
15. Careful perusal of aforesaid notification clearly suggests
that after 21.2.2023, though respondent-HPSSC was not competent
to make any fresh selection, but certainly selection made prior to the
issuance of the aforesaid notification or process, if any, could have
been taken to its logical end. Probably, aforesaid clause was
specifically inserted by the Government with a view to protect the
interest of those candidates, who stood selected and were not being
offered appointment on account of certain litigations pending in the
Court.
.
16. Since it is quite apparent from the pleadings adduced on
record by the respective parties that before issuance of aforesaid
notification, respondent No. 1 had informed the respondent No. 2 with
regard to non-joining of the selected candidates and had requested
for recommending the names from the waiting panel but said request
was not considered, and as such, prayer made by the petitioner
cannot be permitted to be defeated on the ground that with the
issuance of notification dated 21.02.2023, respondent No.3 had
become inoperative and had no power to recommend the names from
the waiting panel.
17. Reply filed by HP Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur
clearly reveals that on account of various representations filed by the
candidates, whose names figured in the waiting list, Commission took
up the matter with the Secretary (Pers.) Government of Himachal
Pradesh for filling up the vacancies from the waiting panel. Vide
communication dated 10.10.2023, Secretary (Pers.) to the
Government of Himachal Pradesh, requested the Secretary, Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission, Shimla, to fill up the posts,
which had fallen vacant on account of non-joining of the selected
candidates, but interestingly, no decision ever came to be made with
regard to requests made by the petitioner and other similarly situate
persons, as a result thereof, they were compelled to approach this
.
Court in number of petitions.
18. Though this Court is fully conscious of the fact that
validity of waiting panel was for one year from the date of
recommendation i.e. dated 28.06.2022 and same stood expired on
27.06.2023 i.e. prior to the filing of the petition at hand but once this
Court is satisfied that entire confusion arose on account of
miscommunication inter se respondents No. 2 & 3, coupled with the
fact that respondent No. 1 had intimated both respondents No. 2 & 3
well in time with regard to non-joining of five candidates with the
further request to recommend the names of candidates from select
panel/waiting panel, rightful claim of the petitioner cannot be permitted
to be defeated on the ground that waiting panel stood expired.
19. True it is that after 21.02.2023, no fresh selection and
recommendation could be made by respondent No. 3 but as has been
observed hereinabove everything done by the petitioner prior to
issuance of notification dated 21.02.2023 or omitted to be done, was
required to be taken to its logical end. Since in the case at hand,
petitioner was able to find place in the waiting panel for the post in
question and concerned department after having noticed vacancies
had written to respondents No. 2 & 3 to send the names from the
waiting panel, case of the petitioner being fully covered under the
exception Clause provided in Notification dated 21.02.2023 ought to
.
have been considered by respondents No. 2 & 3. Though learned
counsel representing the respondents attempted to argue that
petitioner has approached this court by way of instant petition after
exhaustion of waiting panel, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact
that prior to filing the petition at hand, petitioner herein had been
approaching authorities for redressal of her grievance.
20. Reply filed by the respondents No. 1 & 3 if read in
conjunction clearly suggests that factum with regard to non-joining of
five candidates from the merit list was well within the knowledge of
respondents No. 2 & 3 and thereafter, repeated requests were made
by respondent No. 1 to sponsor the names from waiting panel, but
yet no action was taken by the respondents No. 2 & 3 for
recommending the names from the waiting panel, as a result thereof,
number of candidates including petitioner, who had chance to get
government job on account of their being in the waiting panel were
denied their rightful claim, which action of the respondents otherwise
by no stretch of imagination can be held to be justifiable rather same
being arbitrary and discriminatory deserves to be quashed and set
aside being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
21. In similar facts and circumstances, this Court directed
respondent-Commission to recommend the name of eligible
.
candidates from the waiting panel drawn after declaration of the result
for various posts i.e. CWP Nos. 5807, 5808 and 5944 of 2023 titled as
Gauri Prasad and Ors. VS. State of Himachal Pradesh and others,
Lobh Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others and Renuka
and Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others decided on
19.03.2024 and judgment dated 22.04.2023 passed in CWP No. 5750
of 2023 titled as Megha Gupta & Anr. VS. State of Himachal
Pradesh & Ors. Respondents have not been able to dispute that
pursuant to aforesaid judgments passed by this Court, petitioners
therein have been offered appointment against the post in question.
22. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made
hereinabove as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds
merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is allowed.
Respondent No. 3, which has now come into existence, is directed to
recommend the name of the petitioner from the waiting panel drawn
after declaration of the result for the post of Junior Draftsman post
Code-838 in year 2020 and thereafter, appropriate action be taken by
respondent No. 1 for offering appointment to the petitioner qua the
available vacancy. Since petitioner has been fighting for her rightful
claim for a considerable time, this Court hopes and trusts that needful
in terms of directions contained in the judgment shall be done by the
respondents expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.
.
In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of
along with pending applications, if any.
p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
July 01, 2025
(Sunil)
r to
