Irfan Vs State of Hp and Ors.

2026:HHC:15357-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

	CWP No.1265 of 2020
	Decided on: 7^thMay, 2026
Irfan	.......Petitioner
	versus

¶4

State of H.P. and others ...Respondents Coram

¶5

*Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jiya* *Whether approved for r*	*Lal Bhardwaj, Judge.* *eporting?*¹
For the petitioner:	Mr.Pushpender Kumar Verma, Advocate vice Mr.K.B. Khajuria, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr.Hemant Kumar Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 2.
	Mr.Angrez Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3.
	Mr.Diwakar Dev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶6

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral)

¶7

The petitioner, by way of present petition, has sought direction to award him 2.5 marks for experience and 1 mark for training of Constable and thereafter prepare the select list of Sub Inspector of Police under the OBC (unreserved) category and re-draw the merit list.

¶8

The facts as emerge from the pleadings are that the petitioner who was appointed as Constable in the year 2013 with the respondents-State had undergone training

¶9

1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

2

¶11

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶12

w.e.f. 01.10.2013 to 10.07.2014. Thereafter, he has worked with the respondents-State as Constable. Respondent No.3Commission had issued the advertisement dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) inviting online recruitment applications for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police, in addition to other posts and the last date for submission of online recruitment application was fixed as 22.01.2019. The total number of posts to be filled-up was 33, out of which 5 posts were reserved for OBC (UR) category.

¶13

The petitioner, who belongs to OBC (UR) category had applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police since he was having essential qualification prescribed for the post. As per advertisement, 15 marks were to be awarded to the shortlisted candidates. A candidate who had undertaken training of atleast 6 months duration, related to the post applied for from a recognized University/Institution, was to be given 1 marks and further experience upto a maximum of 5 years in Government/Semi Government organization relating to the post applied for (0.5 mark only for each completed year) i.e. total 2.5 marks. The petitioner who had qualified the written examination had called for the evaluation. After conducting the interview, respondent No.3-Commission had

¶14

3

¶15

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶16

issued the Notification dated 04.03.2020 and the last candidate who was selected in the category of OBC (UR) i.e. respondent No.4 had obtained 45.46 marks, whereas the petitioner had secured 45.01 marks.

¶17

The grievance of the petitioner in the petition is that he has not been awarded the marks for training of six months as well as the experience relating to the post applied for by him and in case the petitioner was awarded the marks on that count, he would have secured more marks than the last candidate, who has been arrayed as respondent No.4 in the petition. It has been averred by the petitioner that since the petitioner was working on the post of Constable, which is related to the post applied i.e. Sub Inspector of Police, respondent No.3-Commission has erred in not considering his experience certificate, which has caused grave injustice to him. It has further been averred that the petitioner had been working on the post of Constable, since the year 2013 and on the basis of 7 years’ of service as constable, he was entitled for 2.5 marks and the certificate of training and experience submitted by him have not been considered by respondent No.3-Commision and thus, prayed that respondent No.3 be directed to award 2.5 marks for experience and 1 marks for

¶18

4

¶19

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶20

training to him and thereafter prepare the select list of Sub Inspector of Police under the category of OBC (UR) and accordingly re-draw the merit list.

¶21

Respondents No.1 and 2 filed reply and stated that the selection process of Probationer Sub Inspector was completed by respondent No.3 and the Police Department had merely forwarded the requisition on prescribed proforma to respondent No.3-Commission. The Police Department had only issued appointment letters, on receipt of final select list from respondent No.3-Commission.

¶22

Respondent No.3-Commission filed reply to the petition and admitted the allocation of markson prescribed parameters. However, it has been stated that only after evaluation/counseling, the petitioner had submitted both the certificates i.e. training as Constable and working experience as a Constable, which were not found to be connecting with the post applied for. The training certificate of Police Training Camp, Daroh, pertains to the basic recruitment course and every appointee Constable will have to successfully complete recruit training course and field training as his service will be confirmed only after successful completion of recruit training course. The training certificate produced by the petitioner in

¶23

5

¶24

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶25

no way can be related to the training for the post applied for as it has nothing to do with the post applied for i.e. Sub Inspector of Police. Similarly, the certificate regarding working in the Police Department as Constable for the last 5 years has also no connection with the post of Sub Inspector of Police as the post of Sub Inspector of Police is higher post and performs higher functions. The Constable, who is subordinate to the Sub Inspector of Police cannot file charge-sheet in the Court and performs functions of lower responsibilities.

¶26

Respondent No.4 filed reply to the petition and averred that the petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file and maintain the present petition as after having remained unsuccessfully in the selection process, he cannot lay challenge to the same. It is further averred that no illegality or irregularity in the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 has been committed. So far as providing of 15 marks for evaluation is concerned, the experience of 2.5 marks for 5 years in Government/Semi Government organization relating to the post applied for, it can be counted only if the experience is of related post and not of lower post. As such,

¶27

6

¶28

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶29

respondent No.3-Commission has rightly not granted any marks for experience of the post of Constable.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and alsoperused the record carefully.

¶31

It is not in dispute that none of the candidates who were serving as Constables and applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, have been awarded any marks of the training of at least 6 months duration as well as experience up to maximum of 5 years relating to the post. This fact has not been disputed even by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once in the advertisement issued by respondent No.3-Commission, there is no reference of the experience of any post, then, it cannot be construed that the experience of the petitioner on the post of Constable is not related to the post applied for and no marks are to be awarded to him. He strenuously argued that if the experience of the post applied for has to be considered of the same post, then, the person who is already holding the same post will never apply for the said post and thus respondent No.3 has committed illegality in not considering the experience of the post of Constable as

¶33

7

¶34

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶35

well as the training of 6 months duration, which was in possession of the petitioner.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the communication dated 01.03.2019 issued by the Inspector General of Police, wherein it was conveyed that the Constables having graduation degree may be deputed by the officer-in-charge of a Police Station to proceed to the spot and investigate the facts and circumstances of the cases wherein the offence is punishable within imprisonment not exceeding three years or with fine. Since the petitioner was having the qualification of graduation and was working as Constable, his experience on the post of Constable can be said to be related to the post applied for.

¶37

No doubt, the advertisement does not stipulate that experience must be of a particular post, but at the same time, it has also not been mentioned in the said advertisement that experience of the person who is working on the post of Constable, can also be considered. Once respondent No.3-Commission has not granted any marks of the training of at least 6 months duration of the post of Constable as well as experience up to maximum 5 years relating to the said post for the purpose of making selection,

¶38

8

¶39

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶40

the petitioner cannot stress that the experience to the post of Constable has also to be considered for the purpose of making selection while evaluating the candidates as per criteria fixed by respondent No.3-Commission while issuing the advertisement.

¶41

By now, it is well settled by catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that Courts cannot read something, which is not specifically mentioned in the advertisement. Once respondent No.3 had not specifically mentioned that the experience of the post of Constable has also to be considered for the purpose of awarding the marks, this Court does not find any illegality in carrying out the selection process by respondent No.3-Commission. Had respondent No.3-Commission awarded the marks to any of the candidate, who was holding the post of Constable, then the grievance raised by the petitioner was right, but once respondent No.3-Commission has not awarded any marks to the Constable either for training or experience, no illegality can be said to have been committed by respondent No.3Commission while recommending the names for the post of Sub Inspector of Police.

¶42

9

¶43

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶44

The argument put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the person is already holding the post and the experience related to the said post is to be considered, then, the person who is already holding the post will not apply for the post and very purpose of providing the marks of the experience related to the post will be of no use. However, as already mentioned above, this Court cannot relate the experience of the post of Constable to the post applied for i.e. Sub Inspector of Police. No doubt, if a person is already working on the post of Sub Inspector of Police, he will never apply for the said post, but as per supplementary affidavit filed by respondent No.3-Commission, the Constable who has experience of five years has no connection with the post of Sub Inspector of Police as the post of Sub Inspector of Police is higher post and performs higher functions like acting as the Investigating Officer and can file a charge-sheet in Court in accordance with Rules and Regulations, whereas officers subordinate to him including the Constables cannot file charge-sheet in the Court and performs functions of lower responsibilities. Since respondent No.3-Commission has not awarded any marks of training to an employee, who had served as Constable, I do not find any illegality having been

¶45

10

¶46

2026:HHC:15357-DB

¶47

committed by respondent No.3-Commission in not considering the certificates and experience of the post of Constable.

¶48

Consequently, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, no orders to cost. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶49

( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) 7^th May, 2026 Judge

¶50

(naveen)

Irfan v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of Hp and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sant Ram Chauhan and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Vs National Institute of Technology and Anr.

Bharat Bhushan Sharma Vs National Institute of Technology and Anr.

Ashish Vs State of Hp

Manish Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Vs the State of Hp and Others