Himachal Pradesh High Court
Secretary vs Kuldeep Thakur on 7 July, 2025
( 2025:HHC:21843 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
LPA No. 348 of 2025
Date of Decision: 7th July, 2025
__________________________________________________
.
Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur
....Appellant
Versus
Kuldeep Thakur ...Respondent
___________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Appellant: Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Dinesh K. Thakur, Advocate.
G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)
The challenge herein is against the order of learned Single Judge, whereby CWP No. 13366 of 2024 titled Kuldeep Thakur vs. Secretary Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Ayog was allowed on 04.06.2025 and directions were issued to consider the experience certificate of the petitioner as a valid certificate for award of evaluation marks in view of the parameters laid down by the Committee on 21.11.2022.
2. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that there was no reason for discarding the experience obtained by the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS 2 petitioner as a Developer and it was not the case of the present appellant that a Developer was ineligible to apply for the post in question, which is the Junior Office Assistant (Information .
Technology) (JOA) (IT).
3. It has also come on record that an interim order was passed in favour of the writ petitioner/ the respondent herein, whereby one post of Junior Office Assistant (IT) of General Category (unreserved) was directed to be kept vacant, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Writ Court.
4. The reasoning as such by the learned Single Judge is that the stand of the present appellant for discarding the experience certificate does not show that the categories of post, for which the experience has been held to be not countable and there is no exclusion clause.
5. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that experience gained against the posts, which are professional/technical in nature and had been permitted to be counted for award of 2.5 marks was for Programmers/Assistant Programmers/System Officers/ Research Assistants/Associates IT/ Associate Block Coordinators/ Project Support Executives/ Field Assistant (IT)/ Senior Officer (IT) and Network Engineers etc. and there was no valid reason for discarding the experience obtained by ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS 3 the petitioner as a Developer.
6. Finding was recorded that it was not the stand of the respondent/appellant herein that the Writ petitioner was ineligible to .
apply for the post in question and therefore denial of the marks for petitioner's experience certificate defied even common sense logic.
7. The stand of the appellant is that the learned Single Judge should not have gone into the field as such of technical expertise, as the same is not within the domain of the Court to do such an exercise and therefore challenge has been made to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. On the other hand, counsel for the Writ petitioner/respondent has submitted that it is not just the issue of designation of the post as such, but the duties, which have to be done by the Officer as such, which had to be taken into consideration and that the rules of the game could not have been changed, when the recruitment process had started.
9. It is also submitted that on an earlier occasion, one Himanshu Sharma, who was also working as a Developer, had been given the benefit of the experience certificate, whereas the Writ petitioner had not been granted. The petitioner had represented on 13.09.2024 and 14.09.2024 (Annexure P-11) regarding this aspect and a Committee had been set up on 21.10.2022 after the ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS 4 evaluation process has been completed on 31.08.2022 and by virtue of their decision as such, which was subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge, the Rules of the .
game have been changed by excluding the Developer for the benefit for the experience certificate as per clause 11 of the advertisement. It is thus submitted that on account of the criteria, which was changed by the Committee as such, the Writ petitioner has been put to loss since he does not cross the threshold of the cut off marks, if the 2.5 marks are not given for experience since the cut off was 55.46 and he has only got 53 marks.
10. We have gone through the paper book as such. A perusal of the experience certificate issued by this Court would go on to show that the petitioner was working as a Developer through the National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT), Shimla, on outsource basis w.e.f 01.04.2017 to 20.07.2022 and was drawing Rs.31418/- in his last drawn remuneration as per the certificate issued by the Central Project Coordinator (CPC). The evaluation sheet as such (Annexure P-4) would go on to show that that the necessary marks for experience were not awarded at the initial stage.
11. It is also to be noticed that Himanhsu Sharma who was similarly placed and also employed as a Developer had also been ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS 5 given a similar certificate by the same coordinator on 20.07.2022, which has also been placed on record. The appellant firstly itself awarded the benefit of two marks to the said candidate. It has .
specifically been pleaded that the marks now have been withdrawn at a subsequent point of time and it is the case of the petitioner that even if the award of marks is to be given to the said candidate he will not cross the threshold. Therefore, counsel has contested the setting up of the committee in mid-stream as noticed to come to a criteria that for the post of Developer experience was not to be awarded of the marks.
12. We are of the considered opinion, that the said action as such of the Appellant is directly hit by the judgment of the Apex Court in Tej Prakash Pathak and others vs. Rajasthan High Court and Others, reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1, wherein it is held that the doctrine prescribing change of rules midway through recruitment process is predicated on rule against arbitrariness as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The principle of legitimate expectation has been noticed that candidates participating in the recruitment process have legitimate expectation that the recruitment process would be fair and non-arbitrary, though entitlement to appointment is only a right of consideration, but the manner in which it is to be exercised and discretion of the recruitment agency is ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS 6 always subject matter of judicial review. The recruitment process had commenced with issuance of advertisement and it was not the specific case of the appellant that the post of the Developer as such .
was not liable to be given the said benefit, of work experience as per Clause 11.
13. We have also been taken through the findings of the Committee dated 21.11.2022, which have also been reproduced by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had also taken pain as such to reproduce the portion of the minutes by which the committee as such came to the conclusion which posts as such was to be given the benefit of the experience as provided in Clause No.11 of the notification in question.
14. It is the case of the appellant itself that the said exercise was done mid-stream as such and all the application forms especially related to training and experience certificates for the said posts were segregated and report had to be submitted. The said report as such does not show any plausible reason as to why the post of Developer as such has been excluded. In absence of any findings by the expert committee, the argument which has been raised that the Court should not replace the view of the experts thus is not of much value. If the committee as such had to exclude the certain set of posts, it had to give valid reasons so that it could be ::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS 7 judicially scrutinized as to what prevailed with the committee to exclude the post of Developer. Thus the arbitrary action of the committee to exclude the post of the Developer offends Article 14 of .
the Constitution of India and while initially having given the benefit to one of the candidates namely Himanshu Sharma it smacks of arbitrariness. In such circumstances, we of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge directing consideration of the experience certificate as such does not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant interference in the present Appeal.
15. Accordingly, the present Appeal is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
( G.S. Sandhawalia )
Chief Justice
7th July, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma )
(priti) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 09/07/2025 21:16:37 :::CIS