Anupam Vs State of Hp and Ors.

( 2026:HHC:22375 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No.210 of 2026 Date of Decision:- 04.06.2026 Uploaded on: 16.06.2026 Anupam ....Appellant Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶4

*Whether approved for reporting?*¹
For the Appellant : Mr. R.L. Chaudhary and Mr. H.R. Sidhu, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. Arsh Rattan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3-State.
: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
*G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice* (Oral)

¶5

Consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is sought to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No.8653 of 2022, titled as Anupam Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, dated 07.10.2025, whereby the writ petition had been dismissed, while noticing that the petitioner had participated in the selection process, but was not selected due to

¶6

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

¶7

2

¶8

being low in merit and could not get the appointment against the post of Lecturer (Political Science) from the category of General Disabled Person (Visually Imparied), whereby two posts were reserved for Visually Impaired category in Political Science subject for the advertisment issued in the year 2021.

¶9

2. It has been noticed that on the earlier occasion in the year 2019, no post under the disability quota was allocated and there was no occasion for the respondents to consider her against the disability quota on the ground of her merit in the earlier process as the same vacancies were notified only in the subsequent advertisement of 2021, which was the subject matter of consideration before the learned Single Judge.

¶10

3. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in view of the provisions of the “The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995”, there was a legal mandate as such upon the respondents to provide for reservation for the candidates in the Advertisement No.22/2019 dated 10.12.2019 (Annexure P-1).

¶11

4. It is thus submitted that the petitioner had cleared the said examination in 2019 but could not make the cut for the general category and she was not considered against the reserved seat for the disabled persons as none was notified.

¶12

3

¶13

5. In such circumstances, the petitioner seeks relief for settting aside the order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure P-C), wherein the recommendations that had been made by the Selection Committee for the 18 candidates to be appointed as Lecturers against the 4% reserved vacancies for Person with Disabilities in Visual Impaired(VI) category purely on contractual basis. Accordingly, the direction was sought in the writ petition to set aside the allocation of the seats in the Advertisement No.22/2019 dated 10.12.2019, whereby, the respondent authorities had not given 3% reservation quota to the candidates.

¶14

6. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that it is not disputed that in the initial Advertisement No.22/2019 dated 10.12.2019, the total posts for the subject of Political Science were 40 and there were only 17 posts for the open/General Category and rest of the posts were reserved to the other categories, namely, SC/ST/OBC/EWS & BPL and there were no reserved seats for the disabled candidates, out of the total 396 posts advertised.

¶15

7. The petitioner had at that point of time, while applying for the general seat had initially preferred the Civil Writ Petition No.6603 of 2021, for setting aside the allocation of the seats on the ground that 3% reservation out of 40 seats of

¶16

4

¶17

Lecturer (Political Science) was not given and direction had been issued to the respondents to create 3% supernumerary posts for disabled persons, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in CWP No.192/2004, titled as Ankush Dass Sood Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, decided on 22.06.2007. Resultantly, prayer had been sought that the respondents should give appointment to the petitioner against the post of Lecturer (Political Science) from Visually (Impaired) Category w.e.f. 14.07.2021 with all consequential benefits. However, the petitioner did not press the writ petition to its logical end and rather withdrew, the same on account of the State making the statement that new advertisement had comeforth and the petitioner had also applied for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) against the reserved quota of Visually disabled. 8. Resultantly, the Civil Writ Petition No.6603 of 2021, titled as Anupama Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others was dismissed on 05.01.2022. The said order reads as under:-

¶18

“Learned Additional Advocate General submits that this petition has been rendered infructuous, as now Recruitment & Promotion Rules of PGT Cadre, notified on 20.9.2010 and now renamed as Lecturer (School New) have been notified for differently able persons, on 25.6.2021. The petitioner has also applied for the post of Lecturer in the category of differently able persons and the case of the petitioner would be considered in the selection process. Ordered accordingly.”

¶19

5

¶20

9. Once the petitioner had given up the challenge as such to the allocation of seats to give reservation to disabled persons, which was not provided for the advertisement of 2019, we are of the considered opinion that the said argument cannot be raised in the second round of litigation after the petitioner had taken a chance and had cleared the examination but was unsuccessful in making the cut-off against the general seats.

¶21

10. The Apex Court in Madan Lal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir 1995 (3) SCC 486 has held that once a person sits in the examination and is unsuccessful, he cannot question the selection process as such which was notified.

¶22

11. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge had also not granted any relief as such, while dismissing the writ petition, while noting the fact that on merit the petitioner did not make the cut and there was no post under the disability quota allocated for the post of Lecturer (Political Science) in the earlier advertisement. The petitioner, was thus, bound by her action by way of withdrawing the writ petition in the earlier round of litigation and now in the second round of litigation cannot agitate for the same relief, which was not pressed in the first

¶23

6

¶24

round of litigation and is bound by the principle of Constructive Res-Judicata.

¶25

12. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.

¶26

13. Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall

¶27

also stand disposed of.

¶28

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice