Nandan Kumar Vs State of Hp and Others

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Servedaman Rathore and Vipin Bhatia, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondentsState. : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶11

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia

¶12

prayed for the following relief:-

¶13

“A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the order dated 11.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2, made in contravention of law, which is illegal, arbitrary and against the settled provisions of law.

¶14

B. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner against the post of male multi purpose health worker, after quashing the present petitioner.

¶15

C. Issuance of an ex-parte ad. Interim order or direction to

¶16

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

¶17

2

¶18

2026:HHC:7583 respondent no. 1 to 3 to not to recruit/engage any other person for the said job, during the pendency of petition.”

¶19

The issue involved in this writ petition is in a very narrow compass. An advertisement was issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, i.e. Advertisement No. 33-2/2017 (Annexure P-1), inviting applications for various posts including the posts of Male Multipurpose Health Worker and Female Health Worker. The Code of post of Male Multipurpose Health Worker was 650 and that of Female Health Worker was 651. In terms of this advertisement, the opening date for submission of online application form was 16.09.2017 and closing date was 15.10.2017 as up to 11:59 p.m. Further, the qualifications that were mentioned in the advertisement for the purpose of eligibility for Code

¶20

No. 650 and Code No. 651 were as under:-

¶21

	Male Multipurpose Health Worker	Female Health Worker
i)	Should be a 10+2 or its equivalent	i) Should be a Matric with Science/
	from a recognized Board of	Higher Secondary Part-I pass or
	School Education/Institution.	its equivalent from a
ii)	Should possess one and half year Training Certificate as MPW	recognized Board/Institution. ii) Should possess one and half
	(Male) from a recognized Institution of the State Government.	year Training Certificate as Female Health Worker from a recognized Institute.

¶22

The petitioner participated in the process but his

¶23

3

¶24

2026:HHC:7583 candidature was rejected on the ground that he was not possessing 1½ year Training Certificate as MPW (Male) from a recognized Institution of the State Government, though at the relevant time, he was possessing a Diploma in GNM issued in his favour by the Himachal Pradesh Nursing Council, Shimla, which Diploma he had obtained from the Himalayan Modern School of Nursing, Gurdaspur, which institute was duly registered with the Himachal Pradesh Nursing Registration Council in terms of Annexure P-3.

¶25

According to the petitioner, certain Original Applications were preferred before this Court by certain candidates, who had applied for the post of Female Health Workers, who assailed the condition of possessing 1½ years Training Certificate as Female Health Worker from a recognized institute on the ground that their candidature could not have been rejected for want of said training certificate as they were possessing requisite diplomas etc. in the subject. Said Original Applications were allowed by the erstwhile Tribunal and feeling aggrieved, the State filed a writ petition before this Court. In the meanwhile, certain Female Health Workers approached this Court by way of original civil writ petitions also. Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 13.08.2021 was pleased to dispose of all these matters by holding as under:-

¶26

4

¶27

2026:HHC:7583

¶28

“24. On analysis, we find that the facts involved in the bunch of cases under consideration before this Court substantially resembles the facts in Puneet Sharma’s case, therefore, applying the ratio of said judgment, we have no hesitation to hold that the candidates with B.Sc Nursing or GNM have to succeed and are eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Female Health Worker advertised vide Advertisement No. 33-2/2017 dated 16.9.2017 by the SSC, in case they find place in merit list of candidates against their respective category. It is also held that State is not justified in changing its stand in the given facts of the case. Questions i) and ii) framed herein above are answered accordingly.

¶29

25. We deem it necessary to observe that the proposition “higher qualification will include lower qualification” cannot be applied universally as an indefeasible rule, it will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

¶30

26. Accordingly, Civil Writ Petition Nos. 3238, 3466, 3467, 3468, 3905, 3908, 3911, 3913, 3914, 3915, 3921, 3922, 3927, 3932 and 3933 of 2019, 3476 of 2021 and CWPOA 5598 of 2020 are dismissed. In view of dismissal of these petitions and also the directions, we propose to issue hereinafter; prayers made in CWP No. 1423 of 2020 and

¶31

5

¶32

2026:HHC:7583 CWP No. 3476 of 2021 have been rendered infructuous.

¶33

27. We accordingly direct the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission to declare the result of successful candidates in pursuance to Advertisement No. 33-2/2017 by considering the candidates, with B.Sc. Nursing or GNM, as eligible for the post of Female Health Worker in the Department of Health and Family Welfare in addition to the candidates having essential qualifications as per advertisement. We further direct the SSC to make recommendations to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appointment to the post of Female Health Workers in respect of successful candidates within a period of four weeks from today.

¶34

28. All the above noted petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application(s), if any, with no orders as to costs.”

¶35

After adjudication in the aforesaid matters by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, present petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2401 of 2022. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of Annexure P-7 dated 20.09.2023, by directing the respondents to consider and decide the case of the petitioner in light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court (supra).

¶36

6

¶37

2026:HHC:7583 6. In compliance to the said order, the case of the petitioner was decided by the Authority vide order darted 11.12.2023 (Annexure P-8). The authority in terms of the reasoning assigned therein expressed its inability to take a final call on the issue raised by the petitioner and referred the matter to the higher authority and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

¶38

Learned Counsel for the petitioner primarily argued that findings of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court that the condition in the advertisement that a candidate applying for the post of Female Health Worker should possess 1½ years Training certificate as Female Health Worker from a recognized institute was bad in law, is equally applicable in the case of the petitioner also, as herein also, the same condition was imposed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that what weighed with the Hon’ble Division Bench was the actual qualifications already possessed by the applicants therein and herein also, it is not as if the petitioner does not possess basic qualification. He further submitted that the petitioners in the said cases, who were possessing the same qualification as is possessed by the petitioner herein, were declared eligible to be considered for the post in issue and in the light of this fact, the Authority could not have shunned away from its duty of not deciding the case of the petitioner and by submitting the matter to

¶39

7

¶40

2026:HHC:7583

¶41

the superior authority.

¶42

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General argued that the petition is premature because it was not as if the case of the petitioner was rejected by the Authority and it rightly sent the case to the higher authority for appropriate directions.

¶43

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith, this Court is of the considered view that in light of the fact that the petitioner was similarly situated as the candidates in CWP No. 3238 of 2019, titled as The State of H.P. and another vs. Gayatri Devi and others and other connected matters, who had applied for the post of Female Health Worker, he was entitled for the same relief and treatment as was granted to the said candidates by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. The Diploma qualification possessed by the petitioner should have been construed enough to render him eligible to apply for the post in question.

¶44

However, at this stage, this Court cannot pass any mandamus to the effect that the petitioner be considered for appointment on the strength of the Diploma possessed by him qua the vacancies which were advertised vide Annexure P-1. This is for the reason that said advertisement was issued in the year 2017. The petitioner raised the issue for the first time only in the year 2022,

¶45

8

¶46

2026:HHC:7583

¶47

that too after there was a positive decision in favour of Female Health Workers by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. Much water has flown since then and as was rightly pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondent-Commission, further advertisements might have been issued by the recruiting agency and persons might have been recruited on the strength thereof, whose rights cannot be prejudiced at this stage by the Court.

¶48

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case, in future, posts of Male Multipurpose Health Workers are advertised by the Commission and same eligibility criteria is incorporated therein as was there in Advertisement Annexure P-1, then, the petitioner shall be treated as eligible to apply for the said post in light of the adjudication of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3238 of 2019, titled as State of H.P. and another vs. Gayatri Devi and others and other connected matters, decided on 13.08.2021. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶49

March 18, 2026 ( narender )

Nandan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandan Kumar v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Vidya Sain Vs the State of Hp and Others

Kirna Kumari and Another Vs the State of Hp and Another

Rajeev Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sandeep Kumar and Another Vs the State of Hp and Others

Pritam Chand Vs the Hrtc and Others