RAVI KUMAR vs STATE OF HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
CWP No.7818 of 2013
th
Decided on 18 July 2026
Ravi Kumar
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others
…Respondents
Coram
High Court of H.P.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the petitioner: Mr. Arush Matlotia, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents No.1
to 6.

Mr. Balbir Singh, Advocate, vice Mr.
Naresh Kaul, Advocate, for respondents
No.7 and 8.

(Oral
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge )

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia ,
prayed for the following reliefs:-
“a) That the entire record pertaining to the instant case
may kindly be summoned and subjected to scrutiny by
the Hon’ble Court.
b) That the present petition may very kindly be
allowed with costs and this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
issue a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the
result of Jal Rkshak (Annexure P-8).
c) That the respondents (Interview Committee) be
directed by a writ in the nature of mandamus to award
the proper marks for education qualification and offer
the post of Jal Rakshak to the petitioner with all the
consequential benefits.”

::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2026 16:05:14 :::CIS

2
2. The petitioner is seeking the quashing of the
High Court of H.P.
appointment of the private respondent against the post of Jal
Rakshak.
3. Facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition
are that in terms of a news item published in the local
newspaper Danik Jagran on 03.07.2012, applications were
invited to fill up the posts of Jal Rakshak. A copy of the news
item is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1.
3. According to the petitioner, he applied for the said
post along with other candidates. His grievance is that in terms
of the result declared vide Annexure P-8, the private
respondent had secured the maximum marks and has been
offered appointment. On the other hand, the petitioner has
been denied appointment on account of the non-grant of marks
to him under the column of age. This is the only ground on
which the appointment of the selected candidate has been
assailed.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having carefully gone through the pleadings as well as
documents appended with the petition and the reply, this Court
::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2026 16:05:14 :::CIS

3
is of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition.
High Court of H.P.
5. A perusal of the relevant policy, copy whereof is
appended with the reply filed by the respondent-Department
demonstrates that marks were to be allotted to the candidates
depending upon their age in terms of the selection criteria.
Different marks to be allotted under the age criteria mentioned
in the selection criteria are quoted hereinbelow:-
Selection Criteria for Jal Rakshak in IPH Department:-
1.0 Physical
Marks Maxi Marks Total Marks
fitness
1.1 Age Max marks 15
18-19 10
20-22 11
23-25 12
26-36 15
37 to 39 14
40 to 42 13
43 to 45 12
45 9

::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2026 16:05:14 :::CIS

4

High Court of H.P.
6. The petitioner, being 27 years old at the time when
he applied for the post was entitled for 15 marks. It is not his
case that the private respondent has been given more marks
than what he was entitled to. His limited grievance is that the
petitioner has not been given 15 marks to which he was entitled
to under this category.
7. A perusal of Annexure P-8, which is the result card,
demonstrates that the selected candidate, namely, Rajinder
Kumar, obtained 91 marks in the interview. This Court again
reiterates that there is no challenge by the petitioner to the
grant of 91 marks to the selected candidate on the ground that
he was not entitled for marks under any of the heads. The
limited grievance of the petitioner is only that he has been
denied marks under the category of age.
8. Now, as observed hereinabove, the selected
candidate secured 91 marks. The petitioner has secured 61
marks. If 15 marks, which the petitioner has been denied under
the heading of age, are granted to him, then this takes his total
from 61 to 76, meaning thereby that the grand total of the
::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2026 16:05:14 :::CIS

5
petitioner still remains much below the selected candidate who
High Court of H.P.
had secured 91 marks.
9. In light of this fact, as obviously the petitioner shall
not be succeeding on merit and as this Court cannot set aside
the appointment of the private respondent against the post, this
petition is accordingly dismissed.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of accordingly.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
July 18, 2026
(Vinod)
::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2026 16:05:14 :::CIS