Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 592 (HP)

Manoj Sharma v. State of H. P.

2025-04-02

JYOTSNA REWAL DUA

body2025
JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner participated in a selection process wherein he was not awarded one mark kept in the evaluation criteria for ‘Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificate Holders’.Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred this writ petition. 2. Background 2(i). Respondent No.3-Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, issued an advertisement on 18.06.2020, inter-alia, inviting applications for 454 posts of Shastri to be filled up on contract basis against Post Code No.813. The minimum essential qualifications, as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Shastri, were also given in the advertisement. The mode of selection consisted of written test of 85 marks and 15 marks were kept for evaluation of shortlisted candidates. This petition concerns allocation of one (1) mark in the aforesaid evaluation criteria of 15 marks, in particular, with reference to following Sr. No.6 pertaining to the Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificate Holders:- “Part-II (Evaluation of 15 Marks) Evaluation of 15 marks in respect of shortlisted candidates after qualifying written objective screening test/subjective tests and skill tests/physical tests, if any, will be carried out as per the following criteria: - Sr. No. Detail of Criteria of 15 mark Marks Competent authority to issue the certificates 6 NSS (at least one year), certificate holders in NCC/The Bharat Scouts and Guide, Medal winner in National level sports competitions 1(one) Concerned Head of Institution. Certificate of medal winners will be issued by concerned District Youth Services and Sports Officer/Head of Institution. 2(ii) Petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Shastri against General Category post. He appeared in the written test on 20.12.2020. He was declared to have qualified the test on 06.05.2021. Vide letter dated 16.06.2021, petitioner was called for evaluation for allocation of 15 marks on 30.07.2021 in the office of respondent No.3. Petitioner, accordingly, appeared before respondent No.3 on 30.07.2021. Final result was declared by the respondents on 23.12.2021. The name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of successful candidates. 2(iii) From the pleadings of the writ petition, it appears that on account of pendency of CWP No.1773 of 2020, appointment letters were not issued to the successful candidates. It was in September 2022, after vacation of the interim order, that the appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates. 2(iii) From the pleadings of the writ petition, it appears that on account of pendency of CWP No.1773 of 2020, appointment letters were not issued to the successful candidates. It was in September 2022, after vacation of the interim order, that the appointment letters were issued to the successful candidates. In the interregnum, petitioner obtained information under the Right to Information Act and came to know that he had not been allocated one mark for the Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificates produced by him. According to the petitioner, respondent No.3 had wrongly denied him one mark for the Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificates produced by him; Had the petitioner been granted this one mark, he would have made to the list of successful candidates against General Category post. 2(iv) With the above grievance, instant writ petition was instituted on 17.11.2022. Substantive relief prayed for, is as under: - “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to offer the appointment to the petitioner for the post of Shastri by granting one mark in the category of The Bharat Scout and Guide certificate as per the Post Code-813 from due date on which the other successful candidates have been offered appointment with all consequential benefits as such seniority, pay scale with interest.” 3. Submissions 3(i) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in terms of the advertisement dated 18.06.2020 (Annexure P-1), NSS (at least one year) certificate holders in NCC/The Bharat Scouts and Guides, Medal winner in National level sports competitions, were eligible for one (1) mark under 15 marks evaluation criteria. Petitioner had produced his certificate of participation in the State Level Youth Form w.e.f. 24-28 August 2019 held at the Bharat Scouts & Guides State Training Center Rewalsar, District Mandi and another certificate of having attended the Messengers of Peace Rally at Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Solan, on 04.12.2015 issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides. These two certificates were bound to be taken into account by the respondents in terms of Clause-6 of the Evaluation Criteria. The respondents, therefore, were obligated under the advisement to allocate one (1) mark to the petitioner for his certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides. These two certificates were bound to be taken into account by the respondents in terms of Clause-6 of the Evaluation Criteria. The respondents, therefore, were obligated under the advisement to allocate one (1) mark to the petitioner for his certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides. Pointing out to the reply filed by respondent No.3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents had changed and revised the guidelines for evaluation of 15 marks with reference to the certificate holders of the Bharat Scouts & Guides after the commencement of the selection process. Such an action was unsustainable as ‘rules of game’ cannot be changed midway. Reliance in support of this submission was placed on Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2013) 4 SCC 540 . 3(ii) Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the candidates produce different kinds of certificates from the Bharat Scouts & Guides viz. event basedparticipation certificate, camp certificate, long duration training certificate etc. Respondent No.3 had already displayed the guidelines on its website at the relevant time i.e. before the evaluation of 15 marks whereunder only ‘Dwitya Sopan’, ‘Triya Sopan’, ‘Rajya Puraskar’, ‘Rashtarpati Puraskar’, were to be considered for allocation of one (1) mark. Other certificates including camp & event participation were not to be allocated one mark kept for the Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificate. Learned counsel further submitted that on 24.07.2021, respondent No.3 decided that in addition to above certificates of the Bharat Scouts & Guides, following certificates would also be included for evaluation: - “(a) Tritiya Charan Cub/Swarn Pankh Bulbul (b) Chaturth Charab Cub/Heerak Pankh Bulbul. (c) Praveen Badge (d) Nipun Badge. (e) Rashtrapati Rover/Ranger” Learned counsel for respondent No.3 produced the original record of the noting sheets mentioning the above facts. It was also submitted that the decision to include five more certificates as mentioned above, was taken on 24.07.2021, and certificates were accordingly evaluated on the basis of above criteria, though the inclusion of above five more categories of certificates was uploaded on the website or respondent No.3 on 24.11.2021. It was also submitted that the decision to include five more certificates as mentioned above, was taken on 24.07.2021, and certificates were accordingly evaluated on the basis of above criteria, though the inclusion of above five more categories of certificates was uploaded on the website or respondent No.3 on 24.11.2021. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further submitted that the certificates of five days camp participation and one day event participation issued to the petitioner by the Bharat Scouts & Guides were rightly not considered by the respondents for allocation of one mark as these certificates did not entitle him any mark in view of the conditions/criteria already uploaded on the website at the time of issuance of advertisement. This position did not undergo any change in relation to petitioner’s certificates even after under the revised criteria dated 24.07.2021 as uploaded on the website on 24.11.2021. 4. Consideration Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4(i). Instant is not a case where the petitioner has disputed that eligibility criteria was changed by respondent No.3 in middle of the selection process. The eligibility criteria remained the same throughout even according to the petitioner. What is in question is allocation of one mark for the Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificate. According to the petitioner, he was in possession of a camp participation certificate from the Bharat Scouts & Guides for five days in the year 2019 and for one-day event participation of the year 2015. According to the petitioner, these two certificates entitled him one mark in terms of the evaluation criteria set down by the respondents in the advertisement dated 18.06.2020. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondents had changed the evaluation criteria for the certificate holders of Bharat Scouts & Guides midway the selection process; Such a revised criterion, therefore, cannot come in the way of the petitioner from getting one mark for his Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificates. 4(ii) At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to a Constitutional Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2025) 2 SCC 1 , which decided a reference from Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). 4(ii) At this juncture, it will be appropriate to refer to a Constitutional Bench decision in Tej Prakash Pathak and others Vs. Rajasthan High Court and others, (2025) 2 SCC 1 , which decided a reference from Tej Prakash Pathak (supra). A three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while accepting the salutary principle that once the Recruitment Process commences the State or its instrumentality cannot tinker with the ‘rules of game’ insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned, referred the question to the larger bench as to whether that should also apply to the procedure for selection. Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) doubted the correctness of the decision in K. Manjusree, (2008)3 SCC 512 , inter-alia, on account that it failed to notice an earlier decision in Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 . Accordingly, the reference order sought an authoritative pronouncement in that regard from a Larger Bench. The scope of the reference was: (a) whether K. Manjusree lays down the correct law; (b) whether the rules of the game qua method and manner of making selection can be changed or altered after commencement of the recruitment process. For adjudicating upon the reference, the Hon’ble Apex Court divided the discussion into following parts: - “Analysis 21. To effectively analyse and adjudicate upon the questions referred, we would divide our discussion into following parts: 21.1. (a) When the recruitment process commences and comes to an end; 21.2. (b) Basis of the doctrine that "rules of the game" must not be changed during the course of the game, or after the game is played; 121.3. (c) Whether the decision in K. Manjushee" is at variance with earlier precedents on the subject; 21.4. (d) Whether the above doctrine applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure for selection as it does qua eligibility criteria; 21.5. (e) Whether procedure for selection stipulated by Act or Rules framed either under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or a statute could be given a go-by; 21.6. (f) Whether appointment could be denied by change in the eligibility criteria after the game is played.” Following was held in relation to whether the doctrine that ‘rules of game must not be changed during the course of or after the game’, applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure as it does qua eligibility criteria. “54. (f) Whether appointment could be denied by change in the eligibility criteria after the game is played.” Following was held in relation to whether the doctrine that ‘rules of game must not be changed during the course of or after the game’, applies with equal strictness qua method or procedure as it does qua eligibility criteria. “54. As already noticed in Section (A), a recruitment process inter alia comprises of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Subject to the rule against arbitrariness, how tests or viva voce are to be conducted, what questions are to be put, in what manner evaluation is to be done, whether a shortlisting exercise is needed are all matters of procedure which, in absence of rules to the contrary, may be devised by the competent authority. Often advertisements) inviting applications are open- ended in terms of these steps and leave it to the discretion of the competent authority to adopt such steps as may be considered necessary in the circumstances albeit subject to the overarching principle of rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. 55 to 58 ……… 59. Another example is in respect of fixing different cut-offs for different subjects having regard to the relative importance of the subjects and their degree of relevance. These instances make it clear that this Court has been lenient in letting recruiting bodies devise an appropriate procedure for successfully concluding the recruitment process provided the procedure adopted has been transparent, non- discriminatory/non-arbitrary and having a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.” Hon’ble Apex Court answered the reference in the following terms: - “65. We, therefore, answer the reference in the following terms: 65.1. Recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and ends with filling up of vacancies; 65.2. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process, cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so permit, or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules, so permit. Even if such change is permissible under the extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to meet the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness; 65.3. The decision in K. Manjusree lays down good law and is not in conflict with the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha. Subash Chander Marwaha3 deals with the right to be appointed from the select list whereas K. Manjusree2 deals with the right to be placed in the select list. The two cases therefore deal with altogether different issues; 65.4. Recruiting bodies, subject to the extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non- discriminatory/non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved; 65.5. Extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps; 65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.” It was, thus, held that recruiting body, subject to its extant Rules, may devise appropriate procedure for bringing the recruitment process to its logical end provided the procedure so adopted is transparent, non-discriminatory/ non-arbitrary and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The extant Rules having statutory force are binding on the recruiting body both in terms of procedure and eligibility. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps. 4(iii) In the instant case, the evaluation criteria mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.06.2020 simply states that ‘NSS (at least one year) certificate holders in NCC/The Bharat Scouts and Guide, Medal winner in National level sports competitions will be allocated one mark’. However, where the rules are non-existent, or silent, administrative instructions may fill in the gaps. 4(iii) In the instant case, the evaluation criteria mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.06.2020 simply states that ‘NSS (at least one year) certificate holders in NCC/The Bharat Scouts and Guide, Medal winner in National level sports competitions will be allocated one mark’. The distinctive nature of different certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides was not provided for while allocating marks for the certificates. It is an admitted position of the parties that there are various kinds of certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides including camp participation, which can be of a day or two or more; an event participation, which can be of a day or more: long duration training certificates etc. Respondent No.3, therefore, evolved a criterion which was displayed on the website at the time of issuance of advertisement that ‘Dwitya Sopan, Triya Sopan, Rajya Puraskar, Rashtarpati Puraskar’, issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides would be eligible for one mark. Thus, camp/event participation certificates were not to fetch any mark. It is not in dispute that these guidelines were there on the website of respondent No.3. Even otherwise, record produced by respondent No.3, containing noting sheets evidences this fact that these guidelines had been displayed on the website of respondent No.3. In fact, it was on 24.07.2021 that the respondents included five more categories of certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides for grant of one mark. Pursuant to these guidelines, the evaluation of Bharat Scouts & Guides Certificates was actually carried out on 30.07.2021. Uploading of the newly added certificates (added on 24.07.2021) on the website in November 2021 will not alter the position of the petitioner’s certificates. Petitioner’s certificates were not eligible for one mark in view of the guidelines, which were already displayed by respondent No.3 on its website at the time of issuance of the advertisement. It is not in dispute that respondent No.3 has uniformly applied this criterion for evaluation of the certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides as produced by the candidates. Petitioner does not even allege discrimination vis-à-vis allocation of marks for the Bharat Scouts & Guides certificates. Instant is, therefore, not a case where ‘rules of game’ were changed during middle of selection process. Petitioner does not even allege discrimination vis-à-vis allocation of marks for the Bharat Scouts & Guides certificates. Instant is, therefore, not a case where ‘rules of game’ were changed during middle of selection process. Eligibility criteria had remained the same right till the culmination of the selection process. Procedural part for evaluating the certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides, which did not provide giving marks to petitioner’s certificates of five days and one-day event participation, issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides was already displayed on the website of respondent No.3 at the time of issuance of advertisement. Before actually evaluating the certificates, five more categories of certificates were added to the list of certificates eligible for award of one mark. Position of petitioner’s certificates issued by the Bharat Scouts & Guides remained unaltered. The evaluation criteria was uniformly applied by the respondents. Hence, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner. 5. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of.