ORDER : Since both the petitions have been filed by the same petitioner and same and similar questions of facts are involved therein, therefore, both were being heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order. 2. In CWP No.3598 of 2020 petitioner has laid challenge upon the selection and appointment and in CWP 4399 of 2021 upon the joining of Mr.Yashwant Singh Chogal who is respondent No.2 and 3 respectively in both the petitions. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of respondents No.1 and 2 in CWP 4399 of 2021 inasmuch as they accepted the joining of respondent No.3 to the post of Member (Law) of Himachal Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘HPERC’) after inordinate delay, petitioner, who also participated in the selection process and was at Serial No.3 in the merit list, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for the following main relief(s) made in CWP No.4399 of 2021 as well as in CWP No.3598 of 2020:- CWP 4399 of 2021:- “(i) That appropriate writ, order or direction may very kindly be issued declaring the acceptance of joining of respondent No.3 to be illegal, null and void being contrary to the provisions of law, as it has already elapsed after a period of one month, in the interest of law and justice.” CWP 3598 of 2020:- “a Quash Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-10, the selection and appointment of respondent No.2 as Member Law of the H.P. State Electricity Regulatory Commission. b. Quash the penal Annexure P-5 prepared by the selection committee in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and criteria adopted by Committee in violation of their own procedure adopted and keeping the merit of the candidates away, while selection. c. To direct the respondent no.4 to 6 to revisit the entire selection process after considering all the facts narrated hereinabove. d. To direct the respondent no.1 to consider the petitioner for appointment in place of respondent no.2.” 4. For having bird’s eye view certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that on 27.05.2020, respondent No.1 invited the applications for the post of Member (Law) in the office of HPERC - respondent No.2. d. To direct the respondent no.1 to consider the petitioner for appointment in place of respondent no.2.” 4. For having bird’s eye view certain undisputed facts, which may be relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that on 27.05.2020, respondent No.1 invited the applications for the post of Member (Law) in the office of HPERC - respondent No.2. Petitioner, who is a designated Senior Advocate and is a part time Member of the H.P. State Consumer Commission, being fully eligible had also applied for the post detailed hereinabove. Respondent No.3, who at that relevant time, was posted as LR-cum- Secretary (Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh also submitted an application for appointment as Member (Law) in the HPERC. Respondent No.1 in terms of provisions contained under Section 85(1) of Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) constituted a Selection Committee consisting of:- (1) Justice P.S. Rana, (Retd.), Chairperson, H.P. State Human Rights Commission as Chairperson of the Selection Committee. (2) Shri Anil Khachi, Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as Member of the Selection Committee. (3) Shri P.K. Pujari, Chairperson Central Regulatory Commission, New Delhi, as Member of the Selection Committee. 5. Selection Committee adopted its own procedure for selection, wherein it decided that each Member would award marks individually out of total 10 marks on the basis of documents submitted by the applicants. Selection Committee also decided that marks awarded by the Members would be aggregated and thereafter would be divided by three in order to prepare merit of panel. On the basis of aforesaid analogy/procedure, Selection Committee, in its meeting held on 16.07.2020, prepared the merit list and recommended panel of names for appointment on the basis of merit as follows:- Sr. No. Name Address of recommendee 1. Yashwant Singh Chogal Niwas near IAS Colony Sargheen, Panthaghati, Shimla 2. Smt. Ritu Singh, Advocate H.P. High Court Lawyer Chamber adjacent to Hotel Marina Shimla, H.P. 6. Respondent No.1 accepted the recommendation of Selection Committee and vide notification dated 31.07.2020 appointed Shri Yashwant Singh, respondent No.3 as Member (Law) of HPERC for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier (Annexure P-3 annexed with CWP 4399/2021). 7. Respondent No.1 accepted the recommendation of Selection Committee and vide notification dated 31.07.2020 appointed Shri Yashwant Singh, respondent No.3 as Member (Law) of HPERC for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier (Annexure P-3 annexed with CWP 4399/2021). 7. In the aforesaid background, petitioner, who had also participated in the selection process, but could not make it to final merit list, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for the relief(s) as reproduced hereinabove. 8. Precisely the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in both the petitions at hand and as has been further canvassed by Mr. K.D. Sood and Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, is that since respondent No.3, at no point of time, annexed documents, if any, with regard to his eligibility and experience alongwith application made by him for the post in question, there was no occasion, if any, for the Selection Committee to award marks to respondent No.3 on the basis of documents. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner argued that merit list, as drawn by the Selection Committee, clearly reveals that Selection Committee awarded the marks on the basis of resume supplied by the candidates and not on the basis of documents. It has further been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that neither any interview was held nor any other consideration was taken into account while determining the merit of the candidates. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that result declared did not show either the criteria laid down for giving the marks or how the select list was prepared, which is a condition precedent in terms of various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 9. The petitioner has alleged that though she applied for inspection of record and proceedings of Selection Committee under Right to Information Act with regard to documents furnished by respondent No.3 and procedure adopted by Selection Committee, but, since she was not permitted to inspect the record, as such, she was compelled to approach the Appellate Authority-cum- Special Secretary (MPP & Power/NCES), who vide order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure P-7 annexed with CWP 3598/2020) directed APIO to allow the petitioner to inspect the record as requested by her in her application dated 18.08.2020. 10. 10. It has further been argued on behalf of the petitioner that had the case of the petitioner been considered on the basis of criteria laid down by the Selection Committee and judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court from time to time, the petitioner would have been selected against the post in question. While inviting the attention of this Court to Annexures P-8 & P-9 (annexed with CWP No. 3598/2020), learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that though respondent No.3 gave detail with regard to experience in the application, but at no point of time annexed supporting documents and as such could not be awarded marks by the Selection Committee on the basis of documents. Lastly, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner being Senior Advocate having experience of 25 years at the Bar could not have been ignored by the Selection Committee. 11. By way of CWP No.4399/2021, petitioner has laid challenge to the action of respondent No.2 in accepting joining of respondent No.3 after inordinate delay. While inviting the attention of this Court to instructions dated 09.09.2016, issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh through its Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel), (Annexure P-4 annexed with CWP No. 4399/2021), learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that while issuing the offer of appointment by different Ministries/Department, it is required to be clearly indicated that the offer would lapse if the candidate does not join within the specified period and this period should normally not exceed one month. 12. In the case at hand, though respondent No.3 was appointed as Member (Law) in the HPERC vide notification dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure P-3 annexed with CWP 4399/2021), but he resumed the charge of the office of Member (Law) of HPERC after one year of his appointment. 13. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General and Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 respectively, supported the impugned selection of respondent No.3. They argued that bare perusal of notice inviting applications for the post of Member (Law) in HPERC i.e. respondent No.2, (Annexure P-3 annexed with CWP No. 3598/2020) nowhere reveals that documents with regard to qualification and requisite experience were required to be annexed with the application and as such selection of respondent No.3 cannot be termed to be ‘bad in law’. While referring to documents containing marks, awarded by Chairperson and Members of Selection Committee (Annexure P-6 annexed with CWP No. 3598/2020), learned Advocate General and Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 respectively, argued that Members of Selection Committee, after having taken note of the documents with regard to requisite qualification and experience, awarded marks to each candidate at the time of interview, wherein admittedly respondent No.3 was found more meritorious than the petitioner and as such no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Selection Committee while recommending the name of respondent No.3 for selection against the post in question. 14. While making this Court peruse application, submitted by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-8 with CWP No. 3598/2020), Mr.Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.3, vehemently argued that there is no comparison, if any, of petitioner and respondent No.3 as far as experience on judicial side is concerned and as such, respondent No.3 has been rightly selected. 15. Lastly, learned Advocate General and Mr. N.K. Sood, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 respectively, argued that once petitioner never objected to the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee for interview and herself participated in the same, she is estopped from laying challenge to the same that too after her being not selected. 16. Having heard learned Senior Counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, we find that primarily challenge to the selection of respondent No.3 to the post of Member (Law) in HPERC has been laid down on the following two grounds:- 1. Since respondent No.3 did not annex/attach documents, if any, with regard to his qualification and experience alongwith the application submitted by him for his selection for the post of Member (Law) in respondent No.2 - HPERC, Selection Committee ought to have rejected the application. Selection Committee with a view to help respondent No.3 gave complete go bye to the Rules and wrongly awarded higher marks to respondent No.3 and another candidate namely; Ms. Ritu Singh. 2. Since respondent No.3, after being selected against the post in question, failed to join within a period of one month, joining given by respondent No.3, after inordinate delay of one year, could not be accepted by respondent No.2. 17. Ritu Singh. 2. Since respondent No.3, after being selected against the post in question, failed to join within a period of one month, joining given by respondent No.3, after inordinate delay of one year, could not be accepted by respondent No.2. 17. It is not in dispute that application for the post of Member (Law) in the respondent No.2-Commission came to be invited by respondent No.1 in terms of directions issued by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled as: State of Gujarat vs. Utility User’s Association and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 21 , wherein it was held that the post of Member (Law) is required to be filled from amongst the persons, who are or have been holding a judicial office or person possessing professional qualification with substantial experience in the practice of law, who has the requisite qualification to be appointed as Judge of the High Court or a District Court. In para 125.2 of the aforesaid judgment it has been held as under:- “125.2 It is mandatory that there should be a person of law as a member of the Commission, which requires a person, who is, or has been holding a judicial office or person possessing professional qualification with substantial experience in the practice of law, who has the requisite qualification to have been appointed as Judge of the High Court or a District Judge. 125.3 That in any adjudicatory Function of the State Commission, it is mandatory for a member having the aforesaid legal expertise to be a member of Bench.” 18. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 is a statutory body constituted under Section 82 of the Act. Sub-section 5 of Section 82 of the Act provides that the Chairperson and Members of the State Commission shall be appointed by the State Government on the recommendation of a Selection Committee referred to in Section 85 of the Act, but, the Selection Committee is to be constituted by the State Government. As per sub-section 4 of Section 85 of the Act, Selection Committee is required to recommend a panel of two names for every vacancy referred to it. 19. In the case at hand, respondent No.1 constituted Selection Committee comprising of three persons as detailed hereinabove. As per sub-section 4 of Section 85 of the Act, Selection Committee is required to recommend a panel of two names for every vacancy referred to it. 19. In the case at hand, respondent No.1 constituted Selection Committee comprising of three persons as detailed hereinabove. Selection Committee, before interviewing the candidates, in its meeting held on 16.07.2020 adopted its own procedure for selection, wherein it came to be decided that each member would award marks individually out of total 10 marks on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicants and thereafter marks awarded by each Member would be aggregated and would be divided by three in order to prepare the merit list of panel. 20. In the case at hand, petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates participated in the interview on 16.07.2020, wherein each Member of Selection Committee awarded marks to each candidate on the basis of their credential i.e. requisite qualification and experience. Members of Selection Committee, after having prepared merit list as per procedure adopted by them, drawn panel of two persons namely; Mr.Yashwant Singh Chogal (respondent No.3) and Ms.Ritu Singh, Advocate, for appointment of Member (Law) of HPERC on the basis of merit and recommended the same to the Government. 21. Perusal of the documents containing marks awarded by each Member of Selection Committee (Annexure P-6 annexed with CWP No. 3598/2020) clearly reveals that out of total 30 marks, respondent No.3 secured 25 marks, Smt.Ritu Singh secured 20 marks and the petitioner herein secured 19 marks and as such petitioner was unable to make her place in the panel of two persons recommended by Selection Committee for appointment to the post in question. Since respondent No.3, who at the relevant time, was working as LR-cum-Secretary(Law) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, secured 25 marks, which are higher marks amongst all the candidates, he was given appointment by respondent No.1 vide notification dated 31.07.2020 (Annexure P-3 annexed with CWP No. 4399/2021). As per aforesaid notification, respondent No.3 came to be appointed to the post in question for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. 22. As per aforesaid notification, respondent No.3 came to be appointed to the post in question for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. 22. Though, in the case at hand, it has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that since respondent No.3 did not annex/attach any document with the application, his application ought to have been rejected by the Selection Committee, but notice inviting application (Annexure P-3 with CWP No. 3598/2020) nowhere reveals that application invited for the post in question was required to be accompanied by documents with regard to his qualification and experience with the application and as such no fault can be said to have been committed by the Selection Committee while entertaining the application of respondent No.3. As far as award of marks, on the basis of documents containing information with regard to requisite qualification and experience of a particular candidate, is concerned, the same was probably required to be given in the application itself as is evident from the application submitted by respondent No.3 (Annexure P-8 annexed with CWP No. 3598/2020). 23. Careful perusal of application filed by respondent No.3 clearly reveals that respondent No.3 was fully eligible and had requisite experience for applying to the post in question. Respondent No.3, after having done his LL.B. in the year 1986, practiced as an Advocate at Sub Divisional Courts till the year 1990, whereafter, he was selected as Assistant Public Prosecutor-cum- Assistant District Attorney and remained as such till 1992 and thereafter w.e.f. 15.01.1992 till 05.08.1995 respondent No.3 also worked as Law Officer in Reserve Bank of India. Since 08.08.1995 till the appointment as Member (Law) in HPERC respondent No.3 worked as Judicial Officer in the H.P. Subordinate Judiciary at various levels. 24. No doubt, petitioner is a designated Senior Advocate having 25 years of experience at Bar, but respondent No.3 prior to his being appointed as Member (Law) in HPEC-respondent No.2 too had an experience of 34 years on judicial side. Apart from above, respondent No.3 served in Subordinate Judiciary in various capacities for more than 25 years and as such, we find it difficult to conclude that petitioner was more experienced and suitable than respondent No.3 for being appointed against the post in question. 25. Apart from above, respondent No.3 served in Subordinate Judiciary in various capacities for more than 25 years and as such, we find it difficult to conclude that petitioner was more experienced and suitable than respondent No.3 for being appointed against the post in question. 25. Since respondent No.3 has been rightly selected/ appointed against the post in question and he has already joined, we do not see any reason/occasion to comment qua the eligibility and experience of Ms.Ritu Singh, Advocate, who was second in penal. Otherwise also Court cannot substitute its opinion for the wisdom of Selection Committee who, apart from considering documents detailed in application, may have taken into consideration other factors relevant for appointment against the post in question. 26. Though in the case at hand petitioner has claimed that Members of Selection Committee were biased and hell-bent to oust her with a view to appoint respondent No.3, but after having seen composition of Selection Committee, we find no reason to doubt the fairness of the Selection Committee while making selection to the post in question. Otherwise also mere allegation of malafides or bias is not sufficient to hold entire selection process as bad in law rather for that purpose a plea of malafide has not only to be clearly pleaded, but specifically proved by adducing cogent evidence. 27. In this regard reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Parkash Singh Badal and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 1 , wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under:- “61. A plea of mala fides has not only to be clearly pleaded but specifically proved by adducing cogent evidence. Mere allegations and suspicions would not be sufficient. In the present case the person to whom mala fide conduct is attributed is interestingly not a party in the proceedings.” 28. Reliance is also placed upon judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Bihar and Another vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Another, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere assertion or a vague or bald statement of malafide is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. 29. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. 29. In State of U.P. and Others vs. Gobardhan Lal, (2004) 11 SCC 402 , the Hon’ble Apex Court ruled that the allegations of malafide must be based on concrete material and must inspire confidence of the Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “8. A challenge to an order of transfer should normally be eschewed and should not be countenanced by the Courts or Tribunals as though they are Appellate Authorities over such orders, which could assess the niceties of the administrative needs and requirements of the situation concerned. This is for the reason that Courts or Tribunals cannot substitute their own decisions in the matter of transfer for that of competent authorities of the State and even allegations of mala fides when made must be such as to inspire confidence in the Court or are based on concrete materials and ought not to be entertained on the mere making of it or on consideration borne out of conjectures or surmises and except for strong and convincing reasons, no interference could ordinarily be made with an order of transfer. 30. In the case at hand, allegation of petitioner against respondent No.3 is that Members of Selection Committee showed favouritism by granting more marks to respondent No.3 and person namely; Ms.Ritu Singh, Advocate, and, thus, they entertained bias against the petitioner. The petitioner has claimed that she, being a Senior Advocate designated by the High Court, is better qualified for the post and giving her lower marks by the Committee is attended by malafide. The petitioner was well aware that the Selection Committee has been constituted in terms of provisions contained in the Act and she was also aware that the Selection Committee consists of respondents No. 4 to 6, as arrayed in CWP No.3598/2020, yet she did not object to the constitution of the Selection Committee and took a chance in the selection process. It is only when she was unable to qualify the selection process, that she laid challenge to the selection of respondent No.3 that too on the ground that Members of the Selection Committee were biased. 31. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 294 ruled as under:- “30. It is only when she was unable to qualify the selection process, that she laid challenge to the selection of respondent No.3 that too on the ground that Members of the Selection Committee were biased. 31. Recently Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohd. Mustafa vs. Union of India and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 294 ruled as under:- “30. The other two factors namely, good record of service and range of experience of all the 12 officers recommended on the basis of length of service are assessed by the Empanelment Committee. Inter se merit of the candidates was evaluated according to the objective criteria followed by the Empanelment Committee. The preparation of panel for appointment as DGP (HoPF) for the State of Punjab, by the Empanelment Committee is in compliance of the Draft Guidelines, which are in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in Prakash Singh’s case as the panel was prepared after taking into account the relevant considerations as directed by this Court in Prakash Singh's case and stipulated in the Draft Guidelines. As no irrelevant consideration prompted the decision, the preparation of the panel by the Empanelment Committee cannot be said to be irrational. Having regard to the nature of the function and the power confided to the Selection Committee, it is not a legal requirement that reasons should be recorded for its conclusion [See: UPSC v. K. Rajaiah & Ors. (2005) 10 SCC 15 , UPSC v. Arun Kumar Sharma, (2015) 12 SCC 600 and Baidyanath Yadav v. Aditya Narayan Roy & Ors., (2020) 16 SCC 799 ]. The Tribunal committed an error in holding the decision of the Committee as arbitrary in the absence of reasons. Therefore, the preparation of the panel by the Empanelment Committee cannot be said to be suffering from unreasonableness.” 32. Mere grant of less marks to the petitioner by the Committee is no ground to hold that Members of the Selection Committee were biased against the petitioner. Leaving everything aside, there was no specific allegation of bias against Members of Selection Committee. 33. Hon’ble Apex Court in M.V. Thimmaiah and Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 119 , has held as under :- “19. ... ... ... ... Leaving everything aside, there was no specific allegation of bias against Members of Selection Committee. 33. Hon’ble Apex Court in M.V. Thimmaiah and Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 119 , has held as under :- “19. ... ... ... ... The allegation of mala fide is very easy to be levelled and it is very difficult to substantiate it, specially in the matter of selection or whoever is involved in the decision making process. People are prone to make such allegation but the Courts owe a duty to scrutinize the allegation meticulously because the person who is making the allegation of animus does sometimes bona fidely or sometimes mala fidely due to his non-selection. He has a vested interest. Therefore, unless the allegations are substantiated beyond doubt, till that time the Court cannot draw its conclusion. Therefore, we reject the allegation of mala fide.” 34. Having due regard to qualification of the petitioner, who is admittedly a designated Senior Advocate having experience of 25 years at Bar, and having perused credentials/bio data of respondent No.3, we find it difficult to conclude that respondent No.3, being less meritorious to petitioner, could not be offered appointment against the post in question and as such we do not see any illegality inasmuch as selection of respondent No.3 against the post in question is concerned. 35. Another ground raised by the petitioner that since respondent No.3 failed to join against the post in question within a period of one month from his appointment, therefore, his appointment deserves to be quashed, deserves outright rejection being devoid of any merit. 36. No doubt, in the case at hand, respondent No.3 was offered appointment against the post in question vide notification dated 31.07.2020, but perusal of aforesaid notification nowhere shows that any time limit was prescribed within which he was supposed to take/resume the charge of the post in question, rather, in the notification it has been mentioned that respondent No.3 is appointed as Member (Law) in HPERC for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier. 37. 37. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, while placing heavy reliance upon instructions issued by Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 09.09.2016 (Annexure P-4 annexed with CWP No.4399/2021), vehemently argued that offer of appointment issued by different Ministries/Departments, would lapse if the candidate fails to join within a specified period which shall not normally exceed one month. Perusal of aforesaid instructions placed on record reveals that Additional Chief Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh sent communication to all Administrative Secretaries to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as well as All Administrative Heads of various Departments in the State to ensure that while issuing offer of appointment it may be conveyed to the selected candidate that offer would lapse if he or she fails to join within a specified period of one month. However, if within a period of one month, a request is received from the candidate for extension of time, time can be extended for a limited period of three months and in any case only upto a maximum of six months from the date of issuance of original offer of appointment. 38. However, in the case at hand, as has been taken note hereinabove, at no point of time, period of joining ever came to be specifically mentioned in the notification for appointment of Member (Law) to the HPERC. Otherwise also, careful perusal of Annexures P-4 & P-5 (annexed with CWP No.4399/2021), as have been taken note hereinabove, talk about the recommendations made by Union Public Service Commission and Subordinate Staff Commission, for appointment to Central Civil Services and the post-delay in joining/revival of offer of appointment after their cancellation–determination of seniority thereof. Aforesaid Annexures P-4 & P-5 are applicable to recruitment made through Public Service Commission and not for the appointment or the recommendations made by Selection Committee under the statutory provisions i.e. Electricity Act, 2003. 39. Since offer of appointment to respondent No.3 did not contain any term and condition, it cannot be said that it elapsed after a period of one month in terms of provisions contained in Annexures P-4 & P-5, which otherwise are not applicable to HPERC - respondent No.2 being statutory body constituted under the Act. 39. Since offer of appointment to respondent No.3 did not contain any term and condition, it cannot be said that it elapsed after a period of one month in terms of provisions contained in Annexures P-4 & P-5, which otherwise are not applicable to HPERC - respondent No.2 being statutory body constituted under the Act. Though we do not find any merit in the aforesaid ground raised by the petitioner, but even if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that respondent No.3 ought to have given his joining within a period of one month from the issuance of notification of his appointment, it is respondent No.2 who could raise objection being employer and definitely not the petitioner who participated and after being declared unsuccessful laid challenge to the selection of respondent No.3. 40. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If aforesaid argument, as advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is accepted and appointment of respondent No.3 is ordered to be quashed on the ground of delay in giving joining against the post in question, petitioner would not be benefited, rather it is the candidate at Serial No.2 in the panel recommended by Selection Committee, who can put claim of being appointed against the post in question. Otherwise also, respondent No.3 has not been given offer of appointment, rather his appointment has been notified by way of notification and therein also no specific period of joining ever came to be prescribed and as such action of respondent No.2 in accepting the joining of respondent No.3 after expiry of one month period cannot be said to be bad in law. 41. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove as well as law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the selection of respondent No.3 and as such the same is upheld and the instant petitions being devoid of any merits fail and are dismissed. 42. Pending applications, if any, in both the petitions are also disposed of.