High Court of H.P.REPORTABLE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

ON THE 15

TH

DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NOS. 2962 OF 2019, 6804 OF 2021 AND 6877

OF 2021

1. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2962 OF 2019

BETWEEN

1. DINESH KUMAR S/O PAR SHOTAM DASS ATRI,

VILLAGE KANDA, PO BA NIKHET, TEHSIL

DALHOUSIE, DISTT. CHAMBA (HP) 176303

2. SHABNAM KUMARI D/O K HEM CHAND,

VILLAGE-PINGLA, P.O - GOHAR, TEH. -

CHACHIOT, DISTT.-MANDI 175029

3. GIRDHARI LAL S/O BHI M SINGH, VILL.

DHARWHAN, PO PAIRI TEH. BALH, DI STT.

MANDI, (HP) 175008

4. VIKRANT KHATTA S/O P RAKASH CHAD, VILL

RAINTA PO DHAWALA, T EHSIL DEHRA, DISTT.

KANGRA, 177117

5. BHAWNA KUMARI D/O KA RTAR SINGH, R/O

SET NO. 3 TYPE 3 GOV T. COLONY, NEAR

GOVT. ITI SOLAN (HP)

6. MANUJ SHARMA S/O SAT PAL SHARMA, VPO

BARI TEH JASWAN, DI STT. KANGRA PIN

176502

7. REKHA KUMARI D/O SUR ESH KUMAR, DOGRA

HOSIERY 6B INDUSTRIA L AREA BILASPUR

174001

8. VIVEK THAKUR S/O BAL VEER SINGH VILL

TIHRI PO CHANDPUR TE HSIL SADAR, DISTT.

BILAPUR 174004

9. SHASHI BALA D/O RAM SARAN WARD NO. 11

VPO-LAKHANPUR, TEHSIL & DISTT BILASPUR

174001

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 2

10. REETA KUMARI D/O BHA NDARI LAL VILL

GAUTA PO DHIWRIN TEH SIL BHORANJ DISTT

HAMIRPUR 176045

11. MANESH CHANDER S/O S ITAR MA VPO SURLA

TEHSIL NAHAN, DISTT SIRMOUR 173001

12. VIKRANT DHIMAN S/O J OGINDER SINGH VPO

GHAROH, TEHSIL DHARA MSHALA DITT

KANGRA 176215

13. ANKUSH S/O RAJ KUMAR DOGRA V.P.O.

KASBA KOTLA TEHSIL J ASWAN DISTT.

KANGRA 177111

14. ASHISH KUMAR S/O PRI TAM SINGH VILL

AMBARY PO RAJOL TEH. SHAHPURDISTT.

KANGRA HP-176208

15. DEEPAK CHAUDHARY S/O RAI SIGH V.P.O.-

ICHHI TEHSIL AND DIS TRICT-KANGRA (H.P.)

176209

16. RISHANT THAKUR S/O B ALBIR SIGH VPO

LOHARLI, TEHSIL GHAN ARI, (AMB)DIST TUNA

177208

17. ASHISH KUMAR S/O JAG DISH KUMAR SHARMA

VILL DALHOG PO BANIK HET TEH DALHOUSIE

DISTT CHAMBA 176303

18. VIRENDER PAUL S/O RA GHUVIR SINGH VPO

CHAUNTRA TEH JOGIND ERNAGAR DISTT.

MANDI (HP) 175032

19. PARVATI D/O MEGH SIN GH VILL CHHAMYAR

PO SURAH TEHSIL BALH DISTT MANDI 175027

20. PREETI SHARMA W/O HA RISH KUMAR VILL.

MASERAN PO PALI TEH PADHAR DISTT. MANDI

(HP) 175001

21. SUPRIYA KAPOOR D/O ARUN KAPOOR

VILLAGE SANYARDI, PO-TALYAR TEH SADAR,

DISTT. MANDI HP 175001

22. KUMARI JYOTI D/O ROSHAN LAL VILL. BHIURA

PO RAJGARH, TEHSIL B ALH, DISTT. MANDI

175027

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 3

23. NARENDER KUMAR S/O D HANI RAM VILL -

ARTHI, PO-KAPAHI, TEHSIL-SUNDERNAGAR,

DISTT. MANDI 175002

24. PANKAJ SHARMA S/O RA KESH VILL-BADRESA

PO BRANG, TEHSIL -SARKAGHAT, DISTT.

MANDI 175024

25. RAKESH KUMAR S/O OM PRAKASH VPO -

CHALEHLI, TEHSIL –GHUMRAWIN DISTT.

BILASPUR 174003

26. KIRAN ARORA W/O AMIT ARORA H.NO. 8115

HARIPUR SUNDERNAGAR PO CHATROKHRI,

DISTT. MANDI 175018

27. GURMINDER SINGH S/O GURMEL SINGH R/O

SOUNT PO-NEHRAN PUKHAR, TEHSI L-DEHRA,

DITT. KANGRA

28. JITENDER KUMAR S/O S H. BODHRAJ VILL -

KURANI PO-BAGSIAD, TEHSIL-THUNAG, DISTT.

MANDI 175035

29. KAMESHWAR SINGH S/O BAL KRISHAN VILL-

CHHALAR, PO -BAGSIAD, TEHSIL -THUNAG,

DISTT. MANDI HP 175035

30. SURESH KUMAR S/O KHE M CHAND VILL -

GULELA PO-PATRIGHAT, TEHSIL BA LDWARA,

DISTT. MANDI HP 175023

31. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O KA MAL JEET VILL -

BHATOLI PO MORSINGI, TEH-GHUMARWIN,

DISTT. BILASPUR

32. SUNIT KUMAR S/O NAND LAL VILL-DHANGU,

PO-RATTI TEHSIL BALH DISTT MANDI (HP)

175008

33. ANMOL SHARMA S/O ASH OK KUMAR VILL -

KOTLA BEHR PO BEHR K UTHERA THE -

JASWAN DISTT KANGRA HP 17711

34. KEWAL KUMAR S/O RATT AN CHAND VPO -

JANDOUR TEHSIL -JASWAN DISTT. KANGR A

(HP) 176501

35. SEEMA DEVI D/O SH. M EHAR CHAND VPO -

DALOH, TEHSIL-AMB, DIST TUNA (HP)177203

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 4

36. VIKAS S/O PAL H. NO. 192 A/3 VILL-PUNGH

NEAR MAHAVIR SCHOOL TEHSIL

SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT M ANDI, 175018

37. ANKIT KUMAR S/O ONKA R SINGH VILL-KAJAIL

PO-SAMOH TEHSIL -JAHNDUTTA DITT

BILASPUR 174021

38. SANDEEP KUMAR S/O BA BU RAM VILL-BALA

PO-DAHAD, TEHSIL -JHANDUTTA DISTT

BILASPUR 174034

39. PRIYANKA D/O ALBEL S INGH VILL-PATTA PO-

TEH GHUMARWIN DISTT BILASPUR 174021

40. VIKAS PATIA S/O TARLOK SINGH VILL GARH

PO PRAGPUR TEHSIL -DEHRA DIST KANGRA

(HP) 177107

41. ASHISH KUMAR S/O SUB HASH CHAND VIL L-

KATHALG PO- PADHIUN TEHSIL –SADER DISTT

MANDI (HP)175001

42. JYOTI D/O SH. DILWAG SINGH VILL-BASALAG

PO-CHOULI TEHSIL-RAKKAR DISTT. MANGRA

(HP) 177043

43. MANI RAM S/O SH. ROSHAN LAL VILL-TAROON

PO-SAMOUR TEHSIL -DHARAMPUR DISTT

MANDI HP 175050

44. POMANDER KUMAR S /O PREM SINGH VILL -

TIKKAR PO-0 PARWARA TEHSIL –CHACHIOT

DISTT. MANDI (HP) 175029

45. PARRAMJEET THAKUR S/ O AMAR SINGH

THAKUR, VILL KULWARA TEHSIL & PO

SUNDERNAGAR DISTT MA NDI

46. RAVINDER KAUNDAL S/O KRISHAN LAL

KAUNDAL, VPO MALOH T EHSIL

SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT M ANDI (HP)

47. SONIKA D/O MANOHAR L AL, VILLAGE BUM

PANTHER TEH GHUMARWI N, DISTT BILASPUR

174028

48. MONIKA SHARMA D/O SH . GEETA RAM, VILL

KHADDAR TEHSIL CHOPP AL DISTT SHIMLA

(HP)

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 5

49. MOHITESHWAR S/O CHAM AN KUMAR, VILL

MASERAN PO PALI TEHS IL PADHAR DISTT

MANDI (HP) 175012

50. PARARMJEET SINGH CHA NDEL S/O PRATAP

SINGH, VPO BARI MAJH ERWAN, TEHSIL

GHUMARWIN DISTT BILA SPUR (HP)

51. ATINDER KAUR D/O HAR NAM SINGH VILLAGE

DHARWARA PO TALWARA TEHSIL

GHUMARWIN DISTT. BILASPUR (HP) 174026

52. DINESH KUMARI W/O MA NENDER SINGH

VILLAGE PAPRAH AL PO SADYANA TEHSIL

SADAR, DISTT. MANDI (HP) 175001

53. RAKSHITA SEN D/O NEK SINGH VILLAGE

BANAIK PO BHOJPUR TE HSIL SUNDERNAGAR

DISTT. MANDI (HP) 175002

54. KANUPRIYA D/O PANKAJ KUMAR H.NO. 105/5,

CHATROKHARI PO & TEH SUNDERNAGAR 1,

NEAR SHIV TEMPLE MAN DI

55. AMIT CHAUDHARY S/O RATTA N LAL

CHAUDHARY, WARD NO. 6 NIFT ROAD

KANGRA (HP)176001

56. DALIP KUMAR THAKUR S /O MADAN LAL VILL.

MANLOG PO DEOTHI, TE H SOLAN DISTT.

SOLAN (HP) 173211

57. LAKSHWINDER SINGH S/ O MAHASHU RAM,

VILL PALAKH TEHSIL I NDORA, WARD NO.1

KANGRA (HP) 176401

58. RAMESH CHAND S/O NAR OTAM RAM VILL.

GADHON PO BRIKHMANI TEH BALH DISTT.

MANDI(HP) 175027

59. TEK SINGH S/O SHER SINGH VILL. BHOSA PO

DIYA TEH BHUNTAR, D ISTT. KULLU (HP)

175141

60. GOPI CHAND S/O PREM SINGH VILL. KATWALI

PO BHARARU TEH JOGI NDERNAGAR DISST T.

MANDI (HP) 175015

61. MONIKA W/O ASHWANI K UMAR VILL. JOL PO

MUHAL TEH DEHRA, KANGRA (HP) 177117

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 6

62. VIRENDER S/O SUNDER SINGH VILL. SUNARLI

TEHSIL CHOPAL DISTT. SHIMLA (HP) 171210

63. LALIT S/O KARTAR SINGH VILL. BEHRAN PO &

TEHSILJHANDUTTA DIST T. BILASPUR (HP)

64. SHYAM LAL S/O LEKH R AM VILL. BEHRAN PO

&TEHSIL JHANDUTTA DISTT. BILASPUR (HP)

65. ANKUSH MANDIAL S/O S H.JOGINDER SINGH

R/O VILLAGE JHANIARA KALESHWAR PO

LOWER GHALLOUR TEHSI L JAWALAMUKHI,

DISTRICT KANGRA, H.P/

66. MUNISH THAKUR S/O SH . BHAGAT SINGH R/O

VILLAGE CHOWK P.O. MAHADEV TEHSIL

SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT MANDI, H.P.

67. AVNEESH SHARM S/O SH . DESH RAJ VILLAGE

DUGHWAN PO GHANDALWI N TEHSIL

GHUMARWIN, DISTT. BILASPUR, H.P.

68. ARVIND KUMAR S/O SH. BISHAN DASS, VILL

BEHRA PO DOMEHAR TES HISL GHUMARWIN,

DISTT. BILASPUR

PETITIONERS

(BY MR. M.L. SHARMA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH

MR. AMAN PARTH SHARM A, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUG H PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVT.

OF H.P., SHIMLA-02

2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL

EDUCATION AND VOCATI ONAL TRAINING

SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATN AGAR AND MR. NARINDE R

GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL

WITH MS. SVANEEL JAS WAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE

GENERAL AND MR. SUNN Y DHATWALIA,

ASSISTANT ADVOCATE G ENERAL).

(MR. ADARSH K. VASHISTA, ADVOCATE,

FOR THE APPLICANTS IN CMP NO. 13093 OF 2020

IN CWP NO. 2962 OF 2019)

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 7

(MR. RAJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE

FOR THE APPLICANTS IN CMP NO. 2471 OF 2021

IN CWP NO. 2962 OF 2021)

2. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6804 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1. TARA DEVI D/O MAST RAM VILLAGE AUHAN

PO BAGSAID, TEH THUNAG DISTT MANDI HP

AGE 32 YEAR

2. KAUSHALESH KUMAR S/O JAI DEV VILLAGE &

PO BAGSAID TEH THUNA G DISTT MANDI HP

3. VIDYA KUMARI D/O MAST RAM VILLAGE

AUHAN PO BAGSAID TEH THUNAG DISTT

MANDI HP

4. PARRAMJEET SINGH S/O OM PARKASH

VILLAGE NANGAL PO BEHIN TEH DEHRA

DISTT KANGRA HP

5. AMIT THAKUR S/O SH. BHAGAT RAM, VILL.

NERI P.O. OKHROO, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.

PETITIONERS

(BY MR. M.L. SHARMA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH

MR. AMAN PARTH SHARM A, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUG H PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVT.

OF H.P., SHIMLA-02

2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL

EDUCATION AND VOCATI ONAL TRAINING

SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATN AGAR AND MR. NARINDE R

GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL

WITH MS. SVANEEL JASWAL, DEPUTY ADVO CATE

GENERAL AND MR. SUNN Y DHATWALIA,

ASSISTANT ADVOCATE G ENERAL).

3. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6877 OF 2021

BETWEEN

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 8

1. RACHANA JAGTA CHAUHA N D/O SH.

PRADHUMAN JAGTA, VIL L GANGTOLI

TEHSIL ROHRU, DISTT SHIMLA (HP) AGE 35

YEARS

2. DEEPIKA VERMA D/O SH. MANI LAL VERMA,

VILL-KANWALA, PO -NAVGAON, TEHSIL -

ARKI, DISTT. SOLAN HP

3. RAVI KUMAR S/O SITA RAM, VILL & PO

LAKHANPUR, TEHSIL SA DAR, DISTT

BILASPUR (H.P.)

4. KRISHMA VERMA D/O MA NI LAL VERMA R/O

VILL. KANWARLA, P.O. NAVGAON, TEHSIL

ARKI, DISTT. SOLAN, H.P.

5. KAMLESH S/O SH. HARI SINGH, VILLAGE

DIGA, P.O. BALOO, TE HSIL KUPVI DISTT.

SHIMLA, H.P.

PETITIONERS

(BY MR. M.L. SHARMA SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH

MR. AMAN PARTH SHARM A, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF H.P. THROUG H PRINCIPAL

SECRETARY TECHNICAL EDUCATION, GOVT.

OF H.P., SHIMLA-02

2. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL

EDUCATION AND VOCATI ONAL TRAINING

SUNDER NAGAR, DISTT. MANDI, H.P.

RESPONDENTS

(BY MR. SUDHIR BHATN AGAR AND MR. NARINDE R

GULERIA, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL

WITH MS. SVANEEL JAS WAL, DEPUTY ADVOCATE

GENERAL AND MR. SUNN Y DHATWALIA,

ASSISTANT ADVOCATE G ENERAL).

This petition coming on for orders this day, the court passed the following:

O R D E R

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 9

Since, the issues raised in all these petitions and reliefs

claimed therein are same and same were heard together, and are being

disposed of vide this common order.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the issuance of Office

Memorandum dated 4.2.2019, issued under the signatures of Deputy

Secretary (TE) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and order dated

5.2.2019 issued by Department of Technical Education, Vocational and

Industrial Training, Sundernagar, whereby entire process of recruitment

/selection to the post of instructors/trainers for different trades in ITI under

Student Welfare Fund in Sept 2018 came to be cancelled, petitioners

herein have approached this court in the instant proceedings filed under

Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following main

relief(s).

Prayers in CWP No. 2962 of 2019 and CWP No. 6804 of 2021

“In view of the submission made hereinabove, it is most humbly prayed

that present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned memorandum

order dated 4.02.2019 and letter dated 05.02.2019 may kindly be set-

aside and quashed. Further, respondent may kindly be directed to restore

the selection process and appoint the petitioners against their respective

post to which their names are sponsored vide letter dated 7.12.2019.”

Prayer in CWP No. 6877 of 2021 and CWP No. 6804 of 2021

“In view of the submission made herein above it is most humbly prayed

that present petition may kindly be allowed and impugned office order

11.09.2019, memorandum order dated 4.02.2019 and letter dated

05.02.2019 may kindly be set-aside and quashed. Further, respondent

may kindly be directed to restore the selection process and appoint the

petitioners against their respective post to which their names are

sponsored vide letter dated 7.12.2019.”

3. For clarity, facts, averments and documents mentioned in CWP

No. 2962 of 2019, are being discussed herein below.

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 10

4. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details but relevant for the

adjudication of the cases at hand are that pursuant to the approval

received from Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated

3.5.2018 (Annexure P-1) to fill up various posts under Student Welfare

Fund/IMC in Government Industrial Training Centres, Director, Technical

Education, Vocational and Industrial Training, constituted zone wise

Selection Committees vide office letter dated 30.8.2018 (Annexure P-2),

with a direction to all the Chairmen of the Selection Committees i.e.

Principals, Industrial Training Institutes at Sundernagar, Shahpur, Shimla

and Udaipur to complete the entire process of selection strictly as per

NCVT norms. In terms of aforesaid direction, Selection Committees

conducted the selection process in their respective zones. Selection

Committees recommended the names of selected candidates and vide

communication dated 7.12.2018, Annexure P-5, Director of Technical

Education, Vocational and Industrial Training sent communications to the

Principal(s) of the concerned Industrial Training Centre to intimate

selected candidates to report to their office alongwith certificates of

educational qualifications in original and requisite experience certificates

duly signed by the competent Authority within fifteen days or else it would

be assumed that the candidate is not interested to join. It was further

stipulated that the certificates/ all relevant documents are to be verified by

the Principal concerned in respect of sponsored candidates before issuing

engagement order and Principal shall be solely responsible for the same.

5. After recommendations made by the Selection Committees, some

of the candidates, who had participated in the selection process, lodged

complaint (Annexure P-6) to the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Hon’ble

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 11

Chief Minister and Hon’ble Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh alleging

therein irregularities in the selection process. Complainants alleged that

no proper procedure was followed, while conducting examination and

members of the Selection Committees selected their own relatives.

Taking cognizance of the complaint, matter was got enquired by the

Director of Technical Education.

6. Shri Jogender Singh, Joint Director at the relevant time, was

directed to enquire into the matter, who after having associated all the

stake holders i.e. complainants and staff responsible for conducting

selection process conducted inquiry and submitted his report to the

Director, who vide letter dated 21.12.2018, sent the same to the

Government for necessary action. On the basis of Inquiry report, vide

memorandum dated 4.2.2019 (Annexure P-7), Government directed the

Directorate of Technical Education to cancel the entire selection process

forthwith.

7. Complying with the aforesaid direction issued by the Government,

Director, Technical Education issued directions to the Heads of Zonal

Selection Committees and Industrial Training Centre, vide letter dated

5.2.2019 (Annexure P-8) thereby canceling the entire selection process.

8. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision taken by the Director

Technical Education, some of the petitioners three in number, filed an

Original Application No. 517 of 2019 titled as Krishma Verma and others

vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of by the

erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal vide order dated

18.7.2019, reserving liberty to the petitioners therein to file comprehensive

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 12

representation to the department concerned with further direction to the

respondents to decide the same expeditiously by way of speaking order.

9. In compliance to aforesaid order dated 18.7.2019, Department

after having afforded opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in that case

passed detailed speaking order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure R-1, of reply

of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 page 225) rejecting the representation filed

by applicants in Original Application and upholding the decision of the

Government to cancel the selection process. Besides above, petitioners

including those three persons, who had earlier approached erstwhile

Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 517 of 2019,

approached this court by way of instant petition, praying therein to quash

and set aside order dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated 5.2.2019, whereby

Government of Himachal Pradesh decided to cancel the selection

process. However, having realized subsequently that three of the

petitioners had already approached erstwhile Himachal Pradesh

Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 517 of 2019, and pursuant to

order passed by tribunal, respondents passed a speaking order,

petitioners herein made application seeking therein to withdraw petition on

behalf of petitioners mentioned at Sr. Nos. 48, 49 and 50. Vide order

dated 4.7.2020, this court permitted aforesaid petitioners to withdraw the

petition. However, the fact remains that in the instant petition, no

challenge ever came to be laid to order dated 11.9.2019 (Annexure R-Z)

passed by Director Technical Education in terms of order dated 18.7.2019

passed by learned Tribunal below.

10. During proceedings of case, it transpired that the persons namely

Rachna Jagta and others laid challenge to aforesaid order dated

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 13

11.9.2019 by way of CWP No. 6877 of 2021, which is also being decided

alongwith these petitions. Since despite their having been declared

successful in the selection process, initiated in the year 2018, pursuant to

approval given by Government of Himachal Pradesh vide communication

dated 3.5.2018, petitioners were not given appointment, as such, they

have approached this court in the instant proceedings, primarily on

following grounds:

(a) No action could be taken by the Government on the complaints

made by the persons, who after having participated in the same

selection process, were declared unsuccessful.

(b) Inquiry report submitted by Inquiry Officer namely Jogender Singh

the then Joint Director was not final, rather he was directed to

conduct preliminary Inquiry to ascertain veracity of allegations

made in complaint. Since Inquiry was not final, no action could be

taken on the same by the Government.

(c) Since it had come in the Inquiry that some of the candidates were

relatives of the members of the Selection Committees and they

were wrongly passed, entire selection process, whereby 248

candidates were declared successful, could not be cancelled,

rather candidates, who were found to be relatives of members of

the Selection Committees, could be weeded out.

(d) Before taking decision to cancel selection process, successful

candidates were not afforded an opportunity to put forth their stand.

11. Mr. M.L. Sharma, learned senior counsel duly assisted by Mr.

Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners in all the

petitions, vehemently argued that memo dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated

5.2.2019 issued by respondents are not sustainable in the eye of law as

such, same deserve to be quashed. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel

argued that though Inquiry being preliminary in nature, could not be

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 14

otherwise made basis to arrive at the final decision of cancellation but

even if Inquiry report is perused in its entirety, it reveals that some of the

candidates were found to be relatives of the members of the Selection

Committees and in that situation, Department instead of canceling the

entire selection process, ought to have weeded out the tainted

candidates, who were relatives of the members of the Selection

Committees. While making this court peruse Annexure R-4, Inquiry report,

Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel contended that since uniform

decision was taken by all Zonal Selection Committees to get the written

examination conducted on OMR sheets, without there being any serial

numbers, such omission, if any, could not be made a basis to cancel the

selection process, especially when candidate appearing in such process

were not at fault and they could not be punished for omission, if any, on

the part of the department. He further argued that the very action of the

respondents in entertaining the complaints that too on behalf of

unsuccessful candidates, is illegal and as such, consequence if any of the

same, is of no relevance. He argued that it is well settled by now that the

unsuccessful candidates have no right to challenge the procedure

adopted by the Selection Committees, while conducting written

examination or interview.

12. Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, learned Additional Advocate General, while

refuting the aforesaid submissions made by learned senior counsel for the

petitioners and supporting the impugned acts of the respondents,

strenuously argued that once factum with regard to illegalities and

irregularities committed by the Selection Committees had come to the

knowledge of the Government, it could not shut its eyes and rightly

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 15

decided to cancel the entire process. While making this court peruse

complaints lodged by some of the candidates, learned Additional

Advocate General contended that serious allegations with regard to

favouritism and nepotism and procedural illegalities were made against

the members of the Selection Committees, which otherwise during Inquiry

were found to be correct and as such, respondents had no option but to

cancel the entire selection process. While making this court peruse

Inquiry report, Annexure R-4 given by Inquiry Officer named above, qua

all the centres i.e. Shimla, Mandi, Udaipur, Kangra and Kullu, learned

Additional Advocate General submitted that in all the selection processes,

members of the Selection Committees helped their relatives and wards in

the examination and apart from this, no procedure was followed,

especially with regard to OMR sheets, which were printed/distributed

without any serial numbers. He further submitted that as per Inquiry

report, marking and evaluation was not as per procedure and some wrong

answers were ticked right and vice versa, as a consequence of which

entire merit was subverted. Mr. Bhatnagar, submitted that none of the

members of the Selection Committees before becoming member, gave

certificates that none of their relative is participating in the examination

rather, they in a planned manner connived with each other and facilitated

selection of their relatives, as a consequence of which merit was ignored

and deserving candidates were not able to find place in the merit list.

Lastly, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that after

cancellation of selection process, fresh process was conducted and

therein some of petitioners and other successful candidates stand

selected as such, otherwise also present petition is not maintainable.

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 16

13. Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocates, while

inviting attention of this court to CMPs No. 2471 of 2021 and CMP No.

13093 of 2020. made on behalf of the complainants, who were aggrieved

by wrong procedure followed in selection process, submitted that

applicants may be arrayed as party in the instant proceedings. In support

thereof, both the learned counsel made submissions as were made by

learned Additional Advocate General. Though, having taken note of law of

the land that unsuccessful candidates are estopped from challenging

selection process, this court sees no occasion to accede to the request of

the applicants, however, since learned counsel for the applicants adopt

the stand and reply filed by the State, no prejudice would be caused to

either of parties, if the applicants are permitted to intervene. Aforesaid

applications are accordingly disposed of.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through

record.

15. Having heard submissions made by learned senior counsel for the

petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General representing the

respondent-State, vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in orders dated 4.2.2019

and 5.2.2019, impugned herein, this court finds no merit in the present

petitions. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while placing reliance

upon judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2015) 11

SCC 493, titled Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and

(2017)9 SCC 478 titled Dr. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom

vehemently argued that a candidate after participating in the selection

process is estopped from challenging the said selection in the event of

being unsuccessful candidates.

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 17

16. Though, having perused aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble

Apex Court this court has no quarrel with the exposition of law laid down

by Hon'ble Apex Court that an unsuccessful candidate cannot lay

challenge to the selection process, after his being declared unsuccessful

but, by now it is also well settled that a candidate after having been

declared unsuccessful, can lay challenge to selection process, if the

same is conducted in violation of statutory rules/Recruitment and

Promotion Rules.

17. Otherwise also, judgments relied upon by learned senior counsel

for the petitioners have no application in the case at hand, because, here

unsuccessful candidates never approached this court in the instant

proceedings, rather, they made complaints to the Hon’ble Prime Minister,

Hon'ble Chief Minister and Hon'ble Chief Justice of the State, alleging

illegalities, irregularities, favouritism and nepotism in the selection process

and as such, on the direction of the Executive, department deemed it

necessary to constitute Inquiry. Inquiry officer after associating all the

stakeholders, including complainants, members of the Selection

Committees and perusing entire selection record, arrived at a conclusion

that the selection process was not conducted as per Rules and the same

was not transparent and fair. On the basis of Inquiry report, Government

deemed it fit to cancel the entire selection process and accordingly issued

memoranda dated 4.2.2019 and letter dated 5.2.2019, thereby canceling

the entire process, which have been impugned herein.

18. No doubt, in the case at hand, unsuccessful candidates made

complaints but once department after having perused contents of

complaints, deemed it necessary to constitute Inquiry and in Inquiry

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 18

allegations were found to be correct, decisions dated 4.2.2019 and

5.2.2019 taken by the Government canceling entire selection process

cannot be quashed on the ground that the Inquiry was initiated at the

behest of unsuccessful candidates.

19. There is yet another aspect of the matter that none of the

petitioners, who was selected, even bothered to lay challenge to the

action of the Government constituting Inquiry rather, they kept on sleeping

till the time, Government while taking action on Inquiry report, decided to

cancel the entire selection process. By the time, petitioners approached

this court, much water had flown under the bridge.

20. Had the petitioners approached this court against the action of

constituting Inquiry pursuant to complaint filed by unsuccessful

candidates, things would have been different but definitely by applying

judgments as taken note herein above, decision of the Government to

cancel the selection process cannot be said to be wrong on the ground

that the same was initiated on the complaints made by unsuccessful

candidates.

21. Most importantly, some of the petitioners before approaching this

court had filed an Original Application No. 517 of 2019 before erstwhile

Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, challenging orders dated

4.2.2019 and 5.2.2019, whereby selection process was cancelled, but

such application was disposed of with a direction to the applicants to file

representation to the competent authority. Competent authority after

having heard all the stake holders, especially the applicants in the Original

Application, found findings returned by Inquiry officer to be correct and

accordingly upheld the cancellation orders dated 4.2.2019 and 5.2.2019,

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 19

vide order dated 11.9.2019 ( Annexure R-1), passed by Director Technical

Education. Aforesaid order dated 11.9.2019, was passed after

approximately one year of submission of Inquiry Report but even then,

same was not challenged initially in the instant proceedings, as has been

taken note herein above, rather, after objection being raised by the

respondent with regard to filing of two petitions by some of the petitioners,

figuring at Sr. Nos. 48, 49 and 20, petitioners herein made an application

seeking permission to withdraw the petition on behalf of the persons, who

had gone to erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal prior to

filing of present petitions. It is a matter of fact that after more than one

year of passing of the order dated 11.9.2019, whereby representation

having been filed by the some of the petitioners came to be rejected,

some of the candidates filed separate writ petition i.e. CWP No. 6877 of

2021, laying therein challenge to said order dated 11.9.2019, but if the

grounds raised therein are perused, they are verbatim same as have

been taken in the instant petition.

22. Another submission made on behalf of the petitioners that in view

of Inquiry report, there was no occasion for the Government to cancel the

entire selection process, rather, the tainted candidates named therein

could be weeded out, also deserves outright rejection being devoid of

merit. No doubt, in the Inquiry Report, there is specific mention of few roll

numbers in the selection of two zones Shimla and Mandi, that, they were

related to the members of the Selection Committees but if report is read in

its entirety, it has been categorically observed therein that no procedure

was followed and there was no uniformity in the selection process. Neither

entire selection process was videographed nor ‘no relation’ certificate was

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 20

procured by Chairmen of Selection Committees from the members of the

Selection Committees, that they are not related to any of candidates

appearing for the examination. Most importantly, all the OMR sheets

provided to candidates were without serial number. Astonishingly all the

sheets were photocopied and thereafter circulated amongst candidates

without serial number and as such, Inquiry Officer found truth in the

allegations of complainants that there may be possibility of changing

answer sheets of some of the candidates, but since no record was

available with regard to serial numbers, Inquiry Officer was handicapped

in returning findings qua the same, but he has categorically stated in the

report that many procedural irregularities were committed at the time of

selection process. Interestingly, some of the members of the Selection

Committees, while admitting factum with regard to their relation with

candidates having participated in the selection process, very conveniently

set up a case that they had brought this fact to the notice of Chairmen and

while their candidates were being interviewed, they were excused and

were not made part of selection process, however, such plea being totally

absurd and untenable was rightly rejected by Inquiry Officer.

23. Mere fact that the OMR sheets were without any serial number and

the photocopies of the same were circulated amongst the candidates,

raises doubt with regard to transparency and fairness of the procedure

adopted by Selection Committees for selection of candidates. Besides

above, it stands duly established that some of the selected candidates

were relatives of members of the Selection Committees and as such,

possibility cannot be ruled out that such members helped them or tried to

help them, in one way or other. Apart from this Inquiry Report reveals that

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 21

evaluation was not proper, right answers were ticked wrong and vice

versa.

24. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while

inviting attention to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in case

Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Puthuvalnikathu (2003) 7 SCC 285,

vehemently argued that only doubtful candidates were required to be

weeded out and other candidates selected on their own merit could not be

ousted. Having perused aforesaid judgment, this court though finds merit

in the submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that where

it is found during Inquiry that some of candidates were helped or selected

by wrong means, their selection can be quashed and remaining

candidates who were part of same selection process but selected on their

merit can be declared successful. However, in the case at hand, entire

selection process had become doubtful on account of findings of Inquiry

Officer wherein he has specifically observed that no procedure was

followed while conducting the selection process.

25. Leaving everything aside, one example with regard to OMR sheet,

without any serial number which were circulated to the candidate after

being photocopied from original without serial number, is a glaring

example of procedural illegalities and lack of professionalism. Apart from

above, it stands established on record that many of the candidates

participating in the selection process were relatives of members of the

Selection Committees which fact they duly acknowledged during Inquiry.

Inquiry Report reveals that no separate attendance register was available

suggestive of fact that such candidate participated in selection process,

which omission vitiated entire selection process, especially in view of

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 22

allegations of some of candidates that some of the persons, who had not

participated in the process, were declared successful. (Annexure R-5 and

R-7)

26. Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India v. Rajesh P.U.

Puthuvalnikathu (supra) has held that despite the firm and positive

information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no infirmity could

be found with reference to others, is nothing but total disregard of

relevancies and allowing to be carried away by irrelevancies, giving a

complete go bye to contextual considerations throwing to winds the

principle of proportionality in going farther than what was strictly and

reasonably required to meet the situation. Hon'ble Apex Court in that case

held the decision of canceling the entire selections, to be wholly

unwarranted and unnecessary. Hon'ble Apex Court held in the judgment

supra, as under:

“6. On a careful consideration of the contentions on either side in

the light of the materials brought on record, including the relevant

portions of the Report said to have been submitted by the Special

Committee constituted for the purpose of inquiring into the irregularities,

if any, in the selection of candidates, filed on our directions – which

Report itself seems to have been also produced for the perusal of the

High Court, there appears to be no scope for any legitimate grievance

against the decision rendered by the High Court. There seems to be no

serious grievance of any malpractices as such in the process of written

examination – either by the candidates or by those who actually

conducted them. If the Board itself decided to dictate the questions in

loud speaker in English and Hindi and none of the participants had any

grievance in understanding them or answering them, there is no

justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapse in dictating

them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to

discuss among them the possible answers. The posting of Invigilators for

every ten candidates would belie any such assumptions. Even that

apart, the Special Committee constituted does not appear to have

condemned that part of the selection process relating to conduct of

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 23

written examination itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in

the matter of valuation of answer sheets with reference to correct

answers and allotment of marks to answers of some of the questions. In

addition thereto, it appears the Special Committee has extensively

scrutinized and reviewed situation by reevaluating the answer sheets of

all the 134 successful as well as the 184 unsuccessful candidates and

ultimately found that except 31 candidates found to have been declared

successful though they were not really entitled to be so declared

successful and selected for appointment. There was no infirmity

whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the

31 identified by the Special Committee. In the light of the above and in

the absence of any specific or categorical finding supported by any

concrete and relevant material that widespread infirmities of all

pervasive nature, which could be really said to have undermined the

very process itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to

weed out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, or illegalities,

if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny appointment to

the other selected candidates whose selections were not found to be, in

any manner, vitiated for any one or other reasons. Applying an

unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to cancel the entirety of the

selections despite the firm and positive information that except 31 of

such selected candidates, no infirmity could be found with reference to

others, is nothing but total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be

carried away by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual

considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality in going

farther than what was strictly and reasonably required to meet the

situation. In short, the Competent Authority completely misdirected itself

in taking such an extreme and unreasonable decision of canceling the

entire selections, wholly unwarranted and unnecessary even on the

factual situation found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity

of what was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be

irrational.”

27. Aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court if read in its

entirety, clearly suggests that the facts were altogether different and same

may not have application to the facts of present case. In that case, Board

itself decided to dictate the questions in loud speaker in English and Hindi

and none of the participants had any grievance in understanding them or

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 24

answering them. Hon'ble Apex Court held in that case that there is no

justification to surmise at a later stage that the time lapsed in dictating

them in different languages left any room or scope for the candidates to

discuss among them the possible answers. Especially, in the said case

Special Committee constituted does not appear to have condemned that

part of the selection process relating to conduct of written examination

itself, except noticing only certain infirmities only in the matter of valuation

of answer sheets with reference to correct answers and allotment of

marks to answers of some of the questions. In addition thereto, it appears

that the Special Committee extensively scrutinized and reviewed situation

by reevaluating the answer sheets of all the 134 successful as well as the

184 unsuccessful candidates and ultimately found that 31 candidates

found to have been declared successful, were not really entitled to be so

declared successful and selected for appointment. There was no infirmity

whatsoever in the selection of the other successful candidates than the 31

identified by the Special Committee.

28. However, in the case at hand, as has been discussed in detail,

inquiry officer found entire selection process to be doubtful. Apart from

procedural irregularities with regard to distribution of OMR sheets, neither

there were serial numbers on OMR sheets nor attendance register was

kept. Most importantly, ‘certificates of no relationship’ were not obtained

from the members of the Selection Committees and some of the selected

candidates were found to be the relatives of members of the Selection

Committees.

29. Since in the case at hand, entire selection process had become

doubtful on account of procedural illegalities, as reported by Inquiry

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 25

Officer, there was no occasion left for the Department to weed out only

those candidates, who were allegedly relatives of members of the

Selection Committees rather, to ensure fair and transparent selection

department rightly decided to cancel the process and initiated fresh

process, wherein petitioners and other eligible candidates participated.

30. Third submission of learned senior counsel for the petitioners, that

no action could be taken on the basis of preliminary Inquiry, is also

without any merit, and as such, is rejected. At the cost of repetition, it may

be noticed that immediately after receipt of complaints, Department in its

wisdom decided to constitute Inquiry and the Inquiry Officer after having

associated all the stake-holders including complainants, members of the

Selection Committees submitted his Inquiry report, on which subsequently

Government decided to cancel the entire selection process.

31. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, while

inviting attention of this court to communication dated 24.4.2019, issued

by Director Technical Education to Sunil Kumar, Principal Government

Industrial Training Centre, vehemently argued that Shri Jogender Singh

the then Joint Director was directed to conduct a preliminary Inquiry and

as such, no decision to cancel the process could be taken on the basis of

a preliminary Inquiry. Though having perused the aforesaid

communication, this court finds that Director Technical Education, while

sending communication to the Principal concerned, mentioned that in

preliminary Inquiry conducted by Joint Director certain discrepancies/

shortcomings were pointed out but apart from above communication,

there is no other document to show that said Inquiry Officer was directed

to conduct a preliminary Inquiry. Even document appointing Jogender

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 26

Singh Joint Director as an Inquiry Officer at initial stage, nowhere

suggests that he was asked to conduct a preliminary Inquiry. Inquiry

Report submitted by aforesaid Inquiry Officer, if perused in its entirety,

nowhere suggests that he conducted a preliminary Inquiry rather, before

submitting report, he enquired into all aspects of the matter especially with

regard to various allegations leveled in the complaint. Even if it is

presumed that report submitted by Inquiry Officer was preliminary one, it

would not make any difference, so far as decision of the Government to

cancel the selection process is concerned, especially when Inquiry Officer

in his report (Annexure R-4 annexed with compliance affidavit dated

17.3.2021 filed by Director Technical Education pursuant to order dated

3.3.2021 P.336 of paper book) categorically concluded as herein under

conclusion qua selection process in Industrial Training Institute

Sundernagar:

Concluding Observations and Recommendations:

1. Evaluators have not evaluated the OMR sheets properly and as per

instructions on the OMR sheets to the candidates and evaluators. OMR

sheets evaluated by the evaluators have not been cross checked by the

Selection Committee or Trade Experts while finalizing the results in the

concerned trade. The merit list prepared and finalized is not correct.

2. NO RELATION CERTIFICATE has not been taken from the members,

trade experts evaluators, invigilators and other associated staff before

the commencement of Selection Process. Even the Chairman and

Member Secretary has not recorded/given this certificate which is

essentially required for smooth and impartial conduct of examination.

Member and other staff associated with the Selection Process whose

relatives appeared in Written Test and has been recommended for

selection were allowed to continue their assigned duties by the

Chairman Selection Committee/Member Secretary without the approval

of competent authority whereas they should have been disassociated for

the remaining selection process.

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 27

3. Photostat copies of OMR sheets have been used in the written test

without serial nos. In the absence of serial no. on OMR sheets

distributed to the candidates it can not be ascertained from the record

which OMR sheet was given to a candidate. Hence, there is technical

flaw in the procedure followed during conduct of written test.

4. In view of above, the entire selection process is not fullproof, hence

may be annulled.”

Qua Industrial Training Institute Shahpur

Concluding Observations and Recommendations:

A. The issue raised in the complaint no.1 against Sh. Sanjeev Kumar

Lakhanpal, Principal, Govt. ITI, Shahpur are vague and not specific in

nature. The complaint appears anonymous. Hence, specifle comments

can not be offered.

B. On the basis of discussion and facts recorded above, the following

observations recommendations are made on the issues raised under

complaint no.2

1. No separate Answer Sheets or OMR sheets were provided to the

candidates. Question paper given to the candidates during test has been

used as Answer Sheet itself and there is no printed serial no. on

Question Paper. Hence, there is technical flaw in the procedure followed

during conduct of written test.

2. No separate attendance records have been prepared and maintained

to ascertain how many candidates turned up for written test/interview

during the conduct written tests/interviews.

3. NO RELATION CERTIFICATE has not been taken from the members,

invigilators and

other associated staff before the commencement of Selection Process.

Even the Chairman and Member Secretary has not recorded/given this

certificate which is essentially required for smooth and impartial conduct

of examination. 4. Keeping in view of these observations the entire

selection process may be annulled.”

Qua Industrial Training Institute Shimla

Concluding Observations and Recommendations:

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 28

1. On random checking of the answer sheets of the candidates whose

roll nos. figure in the complaint it was found that answer sheets of Roll.

Nos 04 & 09 was not checked correctly which casts aspersions on the

entire selection process.

2. As narrated hereinbefore, close relatives of two of the officials

associated with the selection process have been recommended for

selection committee where as per the well settled norms these two

officials ought to have disassociated from the selection process. This

also raises doubts about the selection process. It appears that this lapse

occurred since NO RELATION CERTIFICATE was not taken from the

members of Selection Committee.

3. Photostat copies of OMR sheets have been used in the written test

without serial nos. In the absence of serial no. on OMR sheets

distributed to the candidates it cannot be ascertained from the record

which OMR sheet was given to a candidate. Hence, there is technical

flaw in the procedure followed during conduct of written test.

4. In view of above, the entire selection process is not fullproof, hence

may be annulled.”

Qua Industrial Training Institute Udaipur:

“In view of the above discussion and facts following observations are

made:

1. No separate Answer Sheets or OMR sheets were provided to

the candidates. Question paper given to the candidates during test has

been used as Answer Sheet itself and there is no printed serial no. on

Question Paper. Hence, there is technical flaw in the procedure followed

during conduct of written test.

2. No separate attendance records have been prepared and

maintained to ascertain how many candidates tumed up for written

test/interview on 18.09.2018.

3. Local candidates from Lahual and Spiti could not participate in

the written test/interview on 18.09.2018 due to the reason stated in

above said representations.

4. Keeping in view of these observations the entire selection

process may be annulled.

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS

High Court of H.P. 29

32. After having noticed aforesaid findings given by Inquiry Officer,

probably respondent Department was left with no option but to cancel the

entire selection process which had become doubtful and was actually not

conducted in a transparent and fair manner.

33. Since these complaints of irregularities were not qua one zone,

rather qua all the zones, covering entire State, no illegality can be said to

have been committed by respondents, while ordering cancellation of

entire selection process, and as such, same cannot be interfered with in

the instant proceedings.

34. Leaving everything aside, after canceling the selection process

initiated in 2018, the respondent Department had initiated and concluded

fresh selection process, wherein alongwith fresh candidates, some of the

petitioners have been also declared selected.

35. In view of the detailed discussion made supra and law taken note

of, this court finds no merit in the present petitions, which are accordingly

dismissed alongwith all pending applications.

(Sandeep Sharma)

Judge

September 15, 2022

(Vikrant)

::: Downloaded on - 25/10/2022 15:41:39 :::CIS