Bhaskar Sehgal vs STATE OF HP
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:47523
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
High Court of H.P.
CWPOA No.5665 of 2019
th
Decided on: 28 October, 2026
Bhaskar Sehgal and another ...Petitioners
versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
_______________________________________________
For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista and
Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma,
Additional Advocate General
with Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma,
Deputy Advocate General for
respondent No.1-State.
Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Shubham
Singh Guleria, Advocate for
respondent No.2.
Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate
for respondents No.5, 8, 9 & 19.
Mr. Aakash Thakur, Advocate for
respondents No.10 and 14.
Respondents No.3, 4, 6, 7, 11 to
13, 16 to 18, 15 to 27 ex-parte.
Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)
The petitioners by way of present petition have prayed
for the following substantive relief:-
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
2
“ i) That the impugned interview process conducted by the
High Court of H.P.
Respondents to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Class-I,
Gazetted) on contract basis may kindly be quashed and set
aside being contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. The Respondents may kindly be directed to re-
conduct the interview process for the post of Assistant
Engineer, (Class-I, gazetted) on contract basis and the
Respondent No.2 may further be directed to consider the
candidature of the applicants in the selection process to be
re-conducted by the Respondents in accordance with law
laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the interest of
justice.”
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts of the case
are that the petitioners, who were eligible to hold the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil) had applied in pursuance of Advertisement
dated 22.07.2014 issued by respondent No.2-Himachal Pradesh
Public Service Commission (in short ‘Commission’) before the cut-off
date prescribed for the post.
3. The petitioners were issued call letters for appearing in
the screening test and they appeared in the screening test and were
declared eligible for appearing in the viva-voce test/interview to be
conducted by the Commission. Thereafter, the petitioners appeared
in the viva-voce test/interview conducted by the Commission on
28/29.07.2015. However, when the result was declared by the
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
3
Commission, their names did not find mention in the
High Court of H.P.
recommendations made by it.
4. The petitioners after declaration of the result sought
information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘RTI
Act’) with respect to the break-up, if any, of the 100 marks fixed for
the interview/viva-voce. As per the information supplied by the
Commission, vide letter dated 19.02.2015 (Annexure A-7), it was
stated that there was no break-up of 100 marks fixed for the
interview. However, the marks are awarded in consultation by the
Interview Board, keeping in view the performance of the candidate.
On receipt of the information under the RTI Act, the petitioners have
approached this Court by way of the present petition.
5. The precise grievance raised by the petitioners in the
writ petition and what has been highlighted by the learned counsel
representing the petitioners is that the selection process adopted by
the Commission is in complete derogation to the principles of service
jurisprudence and in clear violation of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Director General, Indian Council
for Agricultural Research and others vs. D. Sundara Raju ,
(2011) 6 SCC 605. It has been averred that making selection solely
on fixing the interview as the criteria for selection for the post of
Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-I (Gazetted), without prescribing
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
4
any break-up of marks fixed, is prima facie arbitrary, unreasonable
High Court of H.P.
and highly illegal. It has further been argued that the selection on
the basis of the viva-voce test/interview with allocation of as high as
100% of the total marks meant for selection for viva-voce
test/interview is beyond reasonable proportions and the same leaves
scope and possibility of serious errors crept into the selection
process and renders the selection of the candidates arbitrary.
Therefore, it has been prayed that the interview process conducted
by the Commission to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) may be
quashed and set aside being contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and further the Commission be directed to
re-conduct the interview process again and consider the
candidatures of the petitioners for selection.
6. Respondent No.1-State filed reply to the petition and in
preliminary submissions averred that the original application filed by
the petitioners is not maintainable, since no injustice or illegality has
been committed by respondent No.1. The entire selection process
has been conducted by the Commission. It has further been averred
that the requisition was sent to the Commission on 06.05.2014 to fill
up 20 posts and on 06.08.2014 to fill up 8 posts of Assistant
Engineer (Civil) on contract basis. The Commission recommended
the names of 25 candidates, vide letter dated 06.08.2015.
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
5
Respondent No.1 is only an appointing authority. Since the issue in
High Court of H.P.
controversy i.e. fixing the interview as sole criteria pertains to the
selection/recommendations of successful candidate(s) by the
recruiting agency i.e. the Commission, no illegality has been
committed by respondent No.1.
7. Respondent No.2 filed separate reply and averred in
preliminary submissions that the petitioners are estopped from
challenging the selection process after having appeared and failed in
the interview. The selection of candidates was made on the basis of
their performance in the viva-voce test/interview, which was of
maximum 100 marks without any break-up of the marks. The
interview was conducted after short-listing the candidates by a
screening test and marks secured by the candidates in the screening
test are not counted for the final merit list. The purpose and
principles of holding screening test and viva-voce test have been
discussed by this Court in CWP No. 1301 of 2009, titled, Ashu Jethi
(Phull) and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others , decided on 07.01.2010. Once the petitioners did not
challenge the Advertisement, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules
for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as well as the
Rules of Business of the Commission, which are available on the
website of the Commission and provide for holding an interview of
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
6
100 marks after the screening test, the petition is not maintainable.
High Court of H.P.
It has further been averred that in response to the Advertisement,
2655 applications were received by the Commission, out of which,
506 applications were rejected for want of requisite fee and 2149
candidates were admitted provisionally. Since the number of
candidates was fairly large in proportion to the number of vacancies,
a screening test was held to shortlist the number of candidates for
interview on 15.03.2015. The screening test was held in consonance
with the provisions contained in Chapter (C) (iii) of the Rules of
Business of the Commission. In this screening test, only 1224
candidates appeared out of the total 2149 provisionally admitted
candidates. On scrutiny, the candidature of 170 candidates was
rejected for want of essential qualifications and 1054 candidates
were finally admitted provisionally. Against these 1054 provisionally
admitted candidates, 109 candidates including the petitioners were
declared qualified in the screening test and were further directed to
appear before the Interview Board. The interview of those
candidates, who qualified in the screening test was conducted with
effect from 27.07.2015 to 01.08.2015 and 25 successful candidates
in all were recommended to respondent No.1 for appointment to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). The petitioners, being lower in
merit, were not selected and thus the petition filed by them is not
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
7
tenable and is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, the same
High Court of H.P.
and similar submissions have been made and prayed for dismissal of
the petition.
8. The private respondents also filed their separate replies
and averred that the petition is misconceived and is liable to be
dismissed. The petitioners once having participated in the entire
selection process including the screening test and thereafter the
viva-voce test/interview cannot challenge the same selection process
after having failed to secure selection. The petitioners had full
knowledge of the procedure being followed by the Commission and
without raising any objection thereto, voluntarily participated in the
selection process. Further, the petitioners have not challenged the
Advertisement No.3/2014 dated 22.07.2014 and subsequent
addendum dated 24.08.2014, pursuant to which, the selection
process was undertaken. Further, the petitioners have also not
challenged the Recruitment and Promotion Rules applicable to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) nor the relevant Rules of Business
of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, under which,
the interview was prescribed to be of 100 marks. The selection
process was conducted in accordance with the applicable Rules and
procedure prescribed by the recruiting authority. The private
respondents had no role whatsoever in framing the recruitment
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
8
criteria conducting the screening test, interviews or preparing the
High Court of H.P.
merit list. They had merely participated in the selection process as
candidates and were selected on the basis of their performance
before the Interview Board in accordance with the prescribed
procedure. There are no allegations of fraud, malpractice, favoritism,
manipulation or any other irregularity having been made against any
of the answering respondents. The petitioners have failed to disclose
any individual illegality attributable to the answering respondents,
which would justify cancellation of their selection or appointment.
The selection has been conducted by an independent recruiting
authority after receipt of the requisition from the State Government.
Further, the judgments, which have been relied upon by the
petitioners are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the
case and as such prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and
also perused the record carefully.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
argued that the selection could not have been made solely on the
basis of the marks obtained in the interview. Before adverting to the
submissions made by learned counsel representing the petitioners, it
would be relevant to quote the relevant procedure as mentioned in
the Advertisement No.3/2014 dated 22.07.2014, whereby the online
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
9
recruitment applications were invited from the desirous and eligible
High Court of H.P.
candidates for recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).
The relevant criteria as mentioned in the Advertisement is
reproduced hereunder.
SCREEENING TEST/EXAMINATION/VIVA-VOCE TEST:--
“(i) In cases where the number of eligible candidates for recruitment to
the post(s) advertised by the Commission is inordinately large, the
Commission may limit/shortlist the number of eligible candidates to
be called for interviews by subjecting them to a screening test
(objective-type / descriptive) of two hours duration. Final selection
of a candidate will be made solely on the basis of his/her
performance in the viva-voce test/ interview, which will be of
maximum 100 marks. The minimum pass marks in interview are 45
for the candidates of general category and 35 marks for the
candidates of reserved categories.
(ii) Where selection is to be made on the basis of performance of the
candidates having qualified the screening test, before the interview
board, a candidate scoring more marks in the interview shall be
placed above the candidates scoring lesser marks in the interview.
If the candidates will score equal marks in an interview, then a
candidate securing more marks in the screening test will be placed
above the candidate securing lesser marks in the screening test. In
case the marks of screening test are equal then the candidate who
is senior in age will be placed above the candidate junior in age.
Where selection is to be made purely on the basis of performance
of the candidates before the interview board, a candidate scoring
more marks in the interview shall be placed above the candidates
scoring lesser marks in the interview. If the candidates will score
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
10
equal marks in an interview, then a candidate who is senior in age
High Court of H.P.
will be placed above the candidate junior in age.”
11. A perusal of the criteria stipulated in the Advertisement
clearly mentions that in case where the number of eligible
candidates for recruitment to the post advertised by the Commission
is inordinately large, the Commission may limit/shortlist the number
of eligible candidates to be called for interviews by subjecting them
to a screening test (objective type/descriptive) of two hours
duration. The final selection of a candidate will be made solely on
the basis of his/her performance in viva-voce test/interview which
will be of maximum 100 marks. The minimum pass marks in the
interview are 45 for the candidates of General category and 35
marks for the candidates of reserved category. Once the said
condition was stipulated in the Advertisement and the petitioners
had applied knowing fully well about the said condition that the final
selection of a candidate will be made solely on the basis of their
performance in the viva-voce test/interview, which will be of
maximum 100 marks, the petitioners at this stage, cannot rake up
the issue that the criteria so stipulated in the Advertisement is
dehors the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
11
Yadav and others vs. State of Haryana and others , (1985) 4
High Court of H.P.
SCC 417, Mohinder Sain Garg vs. State of Punjab and others ,
(1991) 1 SCC 662 and The Director General, Indian Council for
Agriculture Research and others vs. D. Sundara Raju, (2011)
6 SCC 605 and contended that the condition of 100% marks for
viva-voce test in selection is arbitrary and excessive. Learned
counsel has further invited the attention of this Court to the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. (Major)
Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar and others, (2019) 20 SCC 17
and contended that even if the petitioners have participated in the
selection process, they have only accepted the prescribed procedure
and not the illegality in it.
13. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing
the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh
Kumar Shukla and others AIR 1986 SC 1043, Madan Lal and
others vs. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Union of
India and another vs. N. Chandra Sekharan and others
(1998) 3 SCC 694, Vijay Syal and another vs. State of Punjab
and others (2003) 9 SCC 401, Dhanajay Malik and others vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others (2008) 4 SCC 171, Anupal
Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
12
Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and others ,
High Court of H.P.
(2020) 2 SCC 173 and Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others vs. State
of Jammu and Kashmir and others (2023) 17 SCC 147 and
contended that once the petitioners had taken a calculative chance
and appeared in the interview and when the result of the interview
was not favourable to them, they cannot turn around and challenge
the recruitment process subsequently to contend that the process of
interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly
constituted or the criteria laid down is not justifiable.
14. Learned counsel representing the respondents have
also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in CWP No.1301 of 2009, titled, Ashu Jethi ,
(Phull) and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and
others and connected petitions, 2010 SCC Online HP 88.
15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
judgments cited at the Bar and of the considered view that the
petitioners once having participated in the process cannot turn
around and challenge the criteria stipulated in the Advertisement.
The petitioners had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil),
which is a Class-I post, and they were aware about the criteria
stipulated in the Advertisement, as quoted above. Once it was made
clear in the Advertisement that the final selection of a candidate will
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
13
be made solely on the basis of his/her performance in the viva-voce
High Court of H.P.
test/interview, if he/she has been found unsuccessful, he/she cannot
turn around and lay challenge to the said criteria. Had the
Commission not mentioned the said criteria in the Advertisement
and the selection was made solely on the basis of the marks
obtained by the candidates in the viva-voce test/interview, the
petitioners could have raised a plea that the criteria, so fixed to
make selection only on the basis of the marks awarded in the
interview is bad. Once the petitioners have participated in the
selection process and not declared successful since they did not find
their place in the merit list drawn by the Commission after appearing
in viva-voce test/interview, they cannot lay challenge to the
procedure and the criteria laid down in the Advertisement.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgments passed in Ashok Kumar Yadav and Mohinder Sain
Garg’s cases (supra) to contend that the selection cannot be made
on the basis of the 100% marks in the interview. However, the said
contention cannot be accepted once the petitioners had participated
in the selection process conducted by the Commission, without any
demur or protest. The petitioners had appeared in the screening
test and after having qualified the same were called for the viva-
voce test/interview and once they have remained unsuccessful in
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
14
the interview, they cannot lay challenge to the criteria laid down in
High Court of H.P.
the Advertisement.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied
upon the judgment in Meeta Sahai's case (supra) to contend that
even if the candidate by agreeing to participate in the selection
process accepts only the prescribed procedure, not the illegality in it.
In the present case, the Commission has not committed any
illegality while making the selection and it has only adhered to the
procedure prescribed in the Business Rules and further the
conditions stipulated in the Advertisement, which were well known
to the petitioners before applying to the post of Assistant Engineer
(Civil) which is a Class-I post. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Meeta Sahai's case is attracted only if the recruiting
agency commits some illegality during the process of making
selection and not on the basis of the criteria which was prescribed
and followed. The criteria was already prescribed in the
Advertisement and it was made clear to the persons who had
applied pursuant to the Advertisement issued for appointment to the
post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) that the final selection will be made
solely on the basis of his/her performance in the viva-voce
test/interview, which will be of maximum 100 marks. Therefore, the
aforesaid judgment is not attracted to the facts of the present case.
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
15
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tajvir Singh Sodhi's
High Court of H.P.
case (supra) has succinctly dealt with the issue and held that once
the candidate has taken part in the selection process without any
demur or protest, he cannot challenge the same after having been
declared unsuccessful. The candidate cannot approbate and
reprobate at the same time. The relevant para of the judgment
reads as under:-
“39. It is therefore trite that candidates, having taken part in
the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot
challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful.
The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same
time. In other words, simply because the result of the
selection process is not palatable to a candidate, he cannot
allege that the process of interview was unfair or that there
was some lacuna in the process. Therefore, we find that the
writ petitioners in these cases, could not have questioned
before a Court of law, the rationale behind recasting the
selection criteria, as they willingly took part in the selection
process even after the criteria had been so recast. Their
candidature was not withdrawn in light of the amended
criteria. A challenge was thrown against the same only after
they had been declared unsuccessful in the selection process,
at which stage, the challenge ought not to have been
entertained in light of the principle of waiver and
acquiescence.”
19. Similarly a Division Bench of this Court has also
succinctly dealt with the issue after considering the various
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS
2026:HHC:47523
16
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, some of which have been
High Court of H.P.
referred above, and has taken the same view that once the
candidate has participated in the process, he cannot turn around
and lay challenge to the criteria of selection process.
20. In the present case, the petitioners once having
participated in the selection process after knowing fully well that the
final selection was to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in
the interview only and the screening test was only to short-list the
number of eligible candidates to be called for viva-voce
test/interview, no illegality has been committed by the Commission
while making selection and thereafter recommending the eligible
persons for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil).
21. Resultantly, in view of the aforementioned observations,
I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is
accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )
th
28 October, 2026 Judge
(naveen)
::: Downloaded on - 29/10/2026 19:11:04 :::CIS