Narinder Kumar vs HPSSC
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.4930 of 2020
Decided on: 03.09.2026
__________________________________________________________
Narinder Kumar and others .....Petitioners
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection ....Respondents
Commission
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocate vice
Ms. Manju Dhatwalia, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
Petitioner-Narinder Kumar and two others,
namely, Namita Devi and Karan Shekhar, filed an
Original Application No.4782 of 2018, before Learned
State Administrative Tribunal and after the abolition of
Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court
as CWPOA No.4930 of 2020, seeking the following
reliefs:-
“7 (a) That the Respondent may very kindly
be directed to quash the illegal and
arbitrary condition (i) requiring the
Applicants to pass 10+2 with Science
(Physics, Chemistry & Biology),
prescribed in the notification dated
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
2
th
7 July, 2018 (Annexure A-5 (Colly)
for recruitment to the post of
Operation Theatre Assistant (Post
Code-642).
(b) That the Respondent may kindly be
directed to consider the Applicants
for recruitment to the post of
Operation Theatre Assistant (Post
Code-642).”
2. At the very outset, Learned Counsel appearing
High Court of H.P.
for the petitioners, states that since petitioner No.1-
Narinder Kumar has joined Government service and,
therefore, the claim is confined only qua petitioners No.2
and 3-Namita Devi and Karan Shekhar, respectively.
[Statement is taken on record].
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. Case as set up by Learned Counsel is
that petitioner No.2-Namita Devi passed her 10+2
examination in Commerce Group in March 2003
with subject-combination of English, Economics,
Accountancy, Business Study and Sanskrit and she
also passed her Diploma in Operation Theatre
Technology from Punjab Technical University. Petitioner
No.3-Karan Shekhar had passed his 10+2 from Science
Group in March 2011 with subject-combination of
Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Physical
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
3
Education. He passed Diploma in Operation Theatre
High Court of H.P.
Technology from Baba Farid University of Health
Sciences in 2016. It is averred that Respondent-
Commission-Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission, Hamirpur, issued an Advertisement No.33-
2/2017 on 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4], inviting
applications for filling-up 113 posts of Operation Theatre
Assistant [Class-III] on contract basis under Post
Code:642. It is averred that the petitioners applied for the
posts and as per communication dated 07.07.2018
[Annexure A-5 (colly)], the Respondent-Commission called
the petitioners for evaluation for 15 marks for the post
of Operation Theatre Assistant. It is averred that the
Respondent-Commission has rejected their candidature
erroneously, on the ground, that the petitioners did
not possess 10+2 with Science [Physics, Chemistry
and Biology] with 50% marks from recognized Board of
School Education/Institution as required for said post.
3(i). Petitioners have assailed Condition (i) of the
Advertisement invited on 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4],
on the ground that the Respondent-Commission could
not carve out ineligibility for advertised post of Operation
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
4
Theatre Assistant, when, on the basis of 10+2
High Court of H.P.
Qualification, without subject-combination of Physics,
Chemistry and Biology, once the petitioners were allowed
to undergo and pass the Operation Theatre Training
Course from an Institution recognized by Government,
then, the Condition No.(i) in Advertisement requiring
10+2 with Science with specific subject-combination, was
illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS-CORPORATION:
4. Pursuant to the issuance of notice on
13.08.2018, the Respondent-Commission has filed
Reply-Affidavit dated 12.10.2018 of Secretary of the
Respondent-Commission.
4(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that the Respondent-
Commission advertised the posts of Operation Theatre
Assistant on contract basis on 16.09.2017. It is averred
that essential qualifications for the post of Operation
Theatre Assistant as prescribed in Recruitment and
Promotion Rules, read as under:-
“(i) Should be 10+2 with Science (Physics,
Chemistry and Biology) with 50% from a
recognized Board of School Education/
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
5
Institution.
(ii) Must have passed OTA Training course
High Court of H.P.
from a recognized Institution by the State
Government.
OR
B.Sc. Degree in Medical Technology
(Anesthesia & OT Techniques) from
Himachal Pradesh University or equivalent
Degree recognized by the State Government
Persons holding Graduate Degree in Medical
Technology (Anesthesia & OT Techniques) will
be preferred.
(iii) Should be registered with H.P. Para Medical
Council.”
In above backdrop, it is averred that the
Respondent-Commission had issued an Advertisement
on 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4] strictly in conformity with
the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as extracted
hereinabove and petitioners were ineligible for the
post as they did not possess 10+2 with Science with
subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Biology,
with 50% marks, in terms of the Statutory Recruitment
Rules and the Advertisement.
4(ii). Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioners have
passed professional qualifications in Operation Theatre
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
6
Technology/Assistant from outside the State and mere
High Court of H.P.
registration with Himachal Pradesh Medical Council
will not make the petitioners eligible for the post, in
question; and rejection of petitioners, being ineligible,
for want of required Educational Qualifications, does
not suffer from any infirmity; and the petitioners, being
ineligible, cannot be considered for appointment for
aforesaid posts; with the prayer to dismiss the writ
petition.
REBUTTAL:
5. Petitioners have chosen not to file any
rejoinder, so as to rebut the averments made in the
Reply-Affidavit.
6. Heard, Mr. Ankit Chandel, Advocate
appearing vice Ms. Manju Dhatwalia, Learned Counsel,
for the petitioners and Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Learned
Counsel, for the Respondent-Commission.
ANALYSIS:
7. Taking into account the entirety of facts
and circumstances and material on record, this Court
is of the considered view, that rejection of candidature
of the petitioners-Namita Devi and Karan Shekhar, for
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
7
the post of Operation Theatre Assistant in terms of
High Court of H.P.
Advertisement dated 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4] does
not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, for the
following reasons:-
7(i). Respondent-Commission has taken a specific
stand in Para-3 of the Reply-Affidavit that vide
Advertisement dated 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4],
applications were invited for the post of Operation
Theatre Assistant which mandated that the candidates
should be 10+2 with Science [subject combination of
Physics, Chemistry and Biology] with 50% marks and
must have Operation Theatre Training Course
recognized by the State Government or from persons
who possess B.Sc. Degree and other alternative
qualifications; and secondly, once the Advertisement
dated 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4] is in conformity
with Recruitment and Promotion Rules as reproduced
hereinabove, then, the petitioners cannot have any
grievance, unless, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules,
as referred to above, were questioned and were
adjudicated upon in legal proceedings; and thirdly, the
petitioners in the instant case, have admittedly not
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
8
assailed the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for post
High Court of H.P.
of Operation Theatre Assistant, which requires 10+2
with Science with Physics, Chemistry and Biology;
and fourthly, nothing has been placed on record by the
petitioners to assert and establish that the Condition
No.(i) of Advertisement dated 16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4]
or a similar requirement in the Statutory Rules
were contrary to any Statutory Enactment, so as to
show indulgence, in instant case; and fifthly, once the
State Authorities in its wisdom had prescribed the
specific qualifications of “10+2 Science [Physics,
Chemistry and Biology] with 50% marks” and the
petitioners do not possess 10+2 with Science with
subject-combination of Physics, Chemistry and Biology
but petitioner No.2-Namita Devi had passed 10+2 with
Commerce Group with subjects combination of English,
Economics, Accountancy, Business Study and Sanskrit
and likewise, petitioner No.3-Karan Shekhar had passed
his 10+2 from Science Group but without the subjects
combination of Biology, then, in such an eventuality,
both the petitioners being ineligible in terms of
Recruitment and Promotion Rules and Advertisement do
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
9
not have any enforceable right to seek consideration
High Court of H.P.
and resultant appointment for the post of Operation
Theatre Assistant; and sixthly, conferring eligibility
on the petitioners despite being ineligible in terms of
Statutory Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the
Advertisement shall lead to selection of ineligibles, which
shall tantamount to fraud on the Constitutional ethos of
Articles 14 and 16 also; and seventhly, the prescription
of subject- combination of Physics, Chemistry and
Biology, in considered view of this Court, has a rationale,
for the reason, that the incumbents who are to be
recruited as Operation Theatre Assistants, have basic
minimal knowledge of human/biological conditions and
therefore, the prescribed qualification requiring Biology
to be one of the subjects, has a rationale and is valid
and lastly, it is the prerogative of the State to prescribe
the qualifications for the post. Nothing has been placed
on record nor asserted and established that the
qualification prescribed in the Statutory Recruitment
Rules or the Advertisement and condition No.(i) of
Annexure A-4 [at page 38 of paper book] suffers from
any illegality or perversity or is contrary to any
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
10
Enactment. Moreover, there is no ambiguity in the
High Court of H.P.
Recruitment and Promotion Rules or the subject-
advertisement then, the petitioners do not
have any enforceable claim in view of the mandate
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandra Shekhar
Singh and others Versus State of Jharkhand and
others, (2025) 9 SCC 740. Moreover, the stipulations
contained in the Advertisement cannot be ignored and
Court cannot relax the conditions contained in the
Advertisement, as mandated by Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Sanjay K. Dixit and others Versus State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2019) 17 SCC 373 [Para 12].
Once the State Authorities have spelt out the eligibility
criteria and the stipulations contained in the
Advertisement are in conformity with the Statutory
Rules, therefore, this Court cannot re-write the
Advertisement nor sit over the prescribed eligibility
by resorting to an interpretation contrary to the plain
language of the Advertisement in view of the principle
outlined by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra Public Service Commission through
its Secretary Versus Sandeep Shriram Warade and
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
11
others, (2019) 6 SCC 362 [Para 9],
in following
High Court of H.P.
terms:-
“ 9. The essential qualifications for
appointment to a post are for the
employer to decide. The employer may
prescribe additional or desirable
qualifications, including any grant of
preference. It is the employer who is best
suited to decide the requirements a
candidate must possess according to the
needs of the employer and the nature of
work. The court cannot lay down the
conditions of eligibility, much less can it
delve into the issue with regard to
desirable qualifications being at par with
the essential eligibility by an interpretive
rewriting of the advertisement. Questions
of equivalence will also fall outside the
domain of judicial review. If the language of
the advertisement and the rules are clear,
the Court cannot sit in judgment over the
same. If there is an ambiguity in the
advertisement or it is contrary to any rules
or law the matter has to go back to the
appointing authority after appropriate
orders, to proceed in accordance with law.
In no case can the Court, in the garb of
judicial review, sit in the chair of the
appointing authority to decide what is
best for the employer and interpret the
conditions of the advertisement contrary
to the plain language of the same.”
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
12
In aforesaid backdrop, contention of Learned
High Court of H.P.
Counsel for the petitioners lack merit and the same are
turned down.
8. At this stage, Learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be
given liberty to assail the Recruitment Rules or to
approach Respondent-Authority for relaxation. Without
commenting upon the admissibility of liberty, this Court
leaves it open for the petitioners to avail appropriate
remedy, in case, the same is available in law.
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTION:
9. In view of above the discussion and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is
dismissed , in the following terms:-
(i) Instant petition i.e. CWPOA No.4930 of 2020,
titled as Narinder Kumar and others v.
Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection
Commission is dismissed ;
(ii) Condition (i) in the Advertisement dated
16.09.2017 [Annexure A-4] for post of
Operation Theatre Assistant does not suffer
from any infirmity or illegality;
(iii) Condition (i) in Advertisement being in
conformity with Recruitment and Promotion
Rules for the post of Operation Theatre
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS
2026:HHC:37614 REPORTABLE
13
Assistant, is upheld ;
(iv) Rejection of candidature of the petitioners
High Court of H.P.
being in accordance with Rules and law, is
upheld;
(v) Parties to bear their own costs.
In aforesaid terms, instant petition stands
disposed of alongwith all pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any.
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
September 03, 2026
[Bhardwaj]
::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2026 17:30:28 :::CIS