2026:HHC:4992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT

SHIMLA

CWP No. 2908 of 2021

Decided on : 28.02.2026

Sandeep Kumar

…Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. and others

…Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes

For the petitioner :Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate.

For the respondents:Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate, for

respondents No.1 & 2.

Mr. Kunal Thakur, CGC, for

respondent No.3.

Ms. Anjli Soni Verma, Advocate, for

respondent No.4.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the termination of his services by respondent No.1,

in terms of order dated 22.04.2021 (Annexure P-9).

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this

petition are that as per the petitioner, he passed his

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

2026:HHC:4992

matriculation from Central Board of Higher Education, New

Delhi, in the year 2010. A copy of his matriculation certificate is

appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. The petitioner

applied for the post of Junior T/Mate in response to an

advertisement issued by respondent No.1 i.e. Advertisement

No. 2/2020, dated 04/06/2020. To cut the matter short, pursuant

to the participation of the petitioner in the said process, he was

declared as a successful candidate having secured 78.80

marks. His overall merit was 52. The petitioner was offered

appointment vide Annexure P-5, dated 08.03.2021. He joined

the service in terms of Annexure P-6, dated 16.03.2021.

3. Vide Annexure P-7, dated 08.04.2021, the petitioner

was informed by the Senior Executive Engineer, Electrical

Division, Jubbal that due to some discrepancy noticed in his

documents, the complete case was forwarded to the competent

Authority for further decision in the matter and it was intimated

that in his application for the post of Junior T/Mmate (contract),

the petitioner in column No.14 had mentioned that he had

passed matriculation examination from the Central Board of

Higher Education, New Delhi during the year 2010 and at the

3

2026:HHC:4992

time of verification of documents for the said post, the petitioner

had produced the matriculation certificate issued by the Central

Board of Higher Education, New Delhi. It was further mentioned

in this communication that upon scrutinizing the certificate, it

was discovered by the competent higher Authority that Central

Board of Higher Education, New Delhi was listed as a fake

Board and was not recognized by the Himachal Board of

School Education, Dharamshala. It was also mentioned in this

communication that in light of the said fact, his provisional

joining in the Division could not have been accepted and a

show cause was, therefore, issued to the petitioner to explain

his position within seven days.

4. In his reply (Annexure P-8), the petitioner stated

that he had passed his matriculation examination from the

Central Board of Higher Education, New Delhi and there was

no notification in writing issued by the State Government or

HPSEBL that the said Board was a fake Board. The petitioner

made a request that the Department should clear the scenario

regarding the Educational Boards of other States, which were

being considered or not considered for appointment.

4

2026:HHC:4992

5. Not being satisfied by the explanation given by the

petitioner, in terms of Annexure P-9, dated 22.04.2021, the

services of the petitioner were terminated by assigning the

following reasons:-

“Apropos to show cause notice to you vide above

referred letter of this office where in you were given

opportunity to explain your position this has received

your reply vide letter No. NIL dated 12-4-2021.

Regarding your claim that the "Central Board of Higher

Education Delhi" has not been listed as fake board in any

government endorsed publication/website, it is informed

that the said board has been listed as fake board on the

website of Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education

and has been notified to the generak public and

concerned vide the Secretary, HPBOSE Dharamshala

office notification endorsement No. H.S.B. (2)

GEN/208/Euavelant/ item 26(11)/2015-1821-60 dated 5-

3-2015 (copy enclosed).

Keeping in the view the above facts, and in

absence of any substantial/documentary proof of

affiliation of "Central Board of Higher Education Delhi"

with any government entrusted bodies, for School

Education, purpose your provisional joining in this

5

2026:HHC:4992

Division is hereby rejected and offer of appointment as

Jr. T-mate (Contact) offered to you, stands terminated

without any further notice. Further course of action if

required will be initiated in consultation with appropriate

higher authority of HPSEBL.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

termination of the petitioner was unsustainable in the eyes of

law. She argued that the Central Board of Higher Education,

New Delhi from where the petitioner had done his course, was

a duly recognized Board and the Himachal Pradesh Board of

School Education had no authority in law to declare that the

same was not recognized etc. Learned counsel further

submitted that in the absence of there being any cogent

material on the record to demonstrate that the Central Board of

Higher Education, New Delhi was not a legally recognized

Board to either admit students to undergo matriculation or issue

matriculation certificates, the act of respondent No.1

terminating the services of the petitioner is highly arbitrary and

discriminatory. Learned counsel further argued that the

petitioner was selected on the basis of his hard work and also

on the strength of the technical qualification possessed by him

6

2026:HHC:4992

and it was not as if the petitioner was offered appointment

simply on the basis of the matriculation certificate. She

accordingly submitted that as the termination of the service of

the petitioner was totally unsustainable in the eyes of law, the

present petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside

and respondents be directed to continue the service of the

petitioner from the date when his services were terminated,

with all consequential benefits.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.1, 2 and respondent No.3, respectively, argued

that there was no arbitrariness in the act of respondent No.1

for the reason that as the petitioner had obtained appointment

on the strength of a certificate which was procured from a

Board which had no legal existence, the service of the

petitioner was rightly terminated by respondent No.1.

8. Learned counsel referred to the advertisement

dated 04.06.2020 (Annexure P-3) and submitted that it is not as

if the petitioner was offered appointment only on the basis of

the technical qualification. They submitted that a perusal of the

advertisement demonstrates that 60 marks were to be awarded

7

2026:HHC:4992

on pro rata basis on the basis of the marks obtained by a

candidate in the matriculation examination and, therefore, the

matriculation examination was a very material examination and

it is not as if the passing of this examination had no relevance

as far as appointment to the post is concerned. Learned

counsel referred to the documents appended with the reply of

respondent No.4, i.e., Annexure R-4/A and Annexure R-4/B and

submitted that in terms of Annexure R-4/A, Directorate of

Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, as

far back as on 29.01.1999, had issued a public notice that

private institutions mentioned therein were awarding certificates

of 10+2 examinations and students and their guardians were

advised to note that these institutions were not listed amongst

accredited Boards/institutions in the country and certificates

awarded by the said institutions were not recognized by the

competent Authority. Learned counsel submitted that this

included the Central Board of Higher Education, East Patel

Nagar, New Delhi and Central Board of Higher Education,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. Learned counsel, thereafter, referred

to Annexure R-4/B, which is a notification dated 16.03.1999

8

2026:HHC:4992

issued by the H.P Board of School Education and submitted

that even in terms of this notification, the Central Board of

Higher Education, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and Central

Board of Higher Education, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, were not

recognized by the H.P Board of School Education. Learned

counsel further submitted that in light of the fact that the

Directorate of Education, Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi, had categorically stated in terms of the public

notice that the Board from which the petitioner had obtained the

matriculation certificate was not recognized by the competent

Authority, the matriculation certificate of the petitioner was non

est in the eyes of law and as the petitioner had obtained the job

on the strength of a matriculation certificate which did not have

any validity, the termination of the service of the petitioner

cannot be faulted with.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal

submitted that Annexure P-10, appended with the petition,

which was notification, dated 05.03.2015, issued by the H.P

Board of School Education, is to be construed to be prospective

in nature and because the petitioner had done his matriculation

9

2026:HHC:4992

before the said date, the same can have no effect on the

certificate of the petitioner. She further argued that in terms of

Annexures R-4/A and Annexure R-4/B, the Central Board of

Higher Education referred therein were the ones in East Patel

Nagar and Uttam Nagar, whereas the petitioner had not done

his matriculation from either of these two places.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the

documents appended therewith.

11. The facts as have been narrated hereinabove as to

how the petitioner was offered appointment are not much in

dispute, therefore, I shall not be repeating them.

12. The moot issue which this Court has to decide is as

to whether the termination of the service of the petitioner by the

Electricity Board, in the peculiar facts of the case, is justified or

not.

13. The advertisement to which the petitioner

responded for appointment as a Junior T/Mate demonstrates

that the merit of the candidate was to be evaluated out of 100

marks as provided in column No.4 thereof, which inter alia

10

2026:HHC:4992

included 60 marks under the Head "Marks Obtained in Matric to

be awarded on pro rata basis”. The above demonstrates that

the matriculation certificate was a prime consideration for

appointment of a candidate and assessing the eligibility of the

candidate for the appointment against the post and the marks

obtained in the said certificate were determinative to the extent

of 60 marks, though on pro rata basis. Therefore, here it was

not as if matriculation was just a qualification to be possessed

by the candidate which otherwise was to have no relevance

while assessing the merit of the candidate.

14. Annexure P-1 is the matriculation certificate that has

been obtained by the petitioner from the Central Board of

Higher Education, New Delhi, in the year 2010. Now,

incidentally, a perusal thereof demonstrates that the petitioner

had secured 483 marks out of 600, which takes the percentage

of the marks obtained by the petitioner to be 80.5%. This

certificate does not contain the address of this Central Board of

Higher Education, New Delhi, but a perusal of the memo

parties demonstrates that the address of respondent No.5, as

has been mentioned by the petitioner is of Uttam Nagar, New

11

2026:HHC:4992

Delhi. The address of respondent No.5, as mentioned in the

memo parties, is quoted hereinbelow:-

“5.The Central Board of Higher Education, WZ-166

Block C Gali No. 61 Vachspati Bhawan, Landmark Metro

Pillar No. 671 Near Arya Samaj Road, Uttam Nagar, New

Delhi-110059, through its General Secretary.”

15. In light of this fact, the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that the Central Board of Higher

Education, New Delhi, from which the petitioner obtained his

matriculation examination, is not the one which finds mention in

Annexure R-4/A and Annexure R-4/B, cannot be accepted. As it

is the own holding out of the petitioner in terms of the address

of respondent No.5 that Central Board of Higher Education,

New Delhi, is the one at Uttam Nagar, the petitioner cannot be

allowed to take a contrary view.

16. The argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that

because notification (Annexure P-10), issued by the H.P Board

of School Education is dated 05.03.2015 and the same has to

be given prospective effect, therefore, the certificate of the

petitioner, which is pertaining to the year 2010, cannot be said

to be bad on this count, also cannot be accepted. In fact, this

12

2026:HHC:4992

Court is of the considered view that the veracity of the

certificate of the petitioner is shrouded with grave suspicion, not

on the strength of Annexure P-10, but on the strength of

Annexure R-4/A, which is a public notice issued by the

Directorate of Education of the Government of National Capital

Territory of Delhi, that too as far back as on 29.01.1999,

mentioning that respondent No.5 Institute was not recognized

by the competent Authority to award 10+2 certificates. As far as

notification issued by the H.P. Board of School Education is

concerned, it is not as if the H.P. Board of School Education

issued the first notification in the year 2015 only. Annexure R-

4/B demonstrates that this notification was issued by the H.P.

Board of School Education earlier also in the year 1999. In fact,

it appears that after Directorate of Education, New Delhi, issued

public notice on 29.01.1999, as a matter of abundant

precaution and also as a consequence thereof, notification

dated 16.03.1999 was issued by the H.P Board of School

Education to caution the students in Himachal. The petitioner

has not rebutted the stand of the respondents by filing any

rejoinder to the replies filed by them, which replies stood filed

13

2026:HHC:4992

more than four years ago. As the petitioner had obtained the

job on the strength of a matriculation certificate, which

obviously cannot be termed as a valid certificate, the

termination of the service of the petitioner cannot be held to be

bad.

17. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that there was a violation of the principles of natural

justice also, cannot be accepted because the service of the

petitioner was terminated after issuance of a show cause notice

and after response was filed thereto by the petitioner.

Chronology of events also demonstrates that the petitioner was

offered appointment vide Annexure P-5, dated 08.03.2021, he

joined vide Annexure P-6, on 16.03.2021 and the show cause

notice was issued to him in terms of Annexure P-7, on

08.04.2021 i.e. within the fortnight of his joining. The services of

the petitioner were also terminated expeditiously on

22.04.2021, in light of the fact that the petitioner had obtained

the certificate on the strength of a matriculation certificate,

which was obtained from a Board, which was not recognized by

the competent Authority.

14

2026:HHC:4992

18. It is also relevant to refer to Annexure R-3/C, dated

11.03.2018, appended with the short affidavit-cum-reply filed on

behalf of respondent No.3 i.e. Union of India, perusal of which

demonstrates that the Deputy Director of Education, Directorate

of Education, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi

informed the Under Secretary to the Government of India,

Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of

School Education and Literacy that the Government of National

Capital Territory of Delhi does not have any Boards of its own.

The Directorate of Education only grants recognition to schools

under Delhi School Education Act and Rules, 1973, for

regulating the education of Government/aided/private unaided

recognized schools and does not grant any recognition to any

Board. It is further mentioned in this communication that as far

as the Directorate of Education, Government of National

Capital Territory of Delhi is concerned, there are only three

Boards relevant for Delhi, i.e., Central Board of Secondary

Education (CBSE), Indian Certificate of Secondary Education

(ICSE) and National Institute of Open School (NIOS). This also

demonstrates that the Board from which the petitioner had

15

2026:HHC:4992

obtained matriculation certificate in fact is a non-existing Board.

19. In view of the above discussion, as this Court finds

no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge

February 28, 2026

(Shivank Thakur)