Dismissed¶¶26

Irfan v. State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Jul 2026LPA/386/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh HC, LPA No.386 of 2026, decided 21.07.2026; Sub Inspector of Police recruitment, Post Code 729; HP Staff Selection Commission Hamirpur advertisement 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5), Clauses 10 & 11; 15-marks evaluation scheme (notification 17.04.2017); 2.5 experience marks and 1 training mark denied; Constable service not experience relating to Sub Inspector post; Article 14 equality satisfied; merit-list redraw prayer; Single Judge CWP No. 1265 of 2020 dismissal of 07.05.2026 upheld; appeal dismissed with pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

There is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as all similarly situated candidates were treated alike; no candidate who produced training or experience certificates relating to the post of Constable was awarded marks. ¶¶23

Irfan Vs State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who had worked as a Constable since 2013, was entitled to 2.5 marks for experience and one mark for training in preparing the select list for the post of Sub Inspector under the OBC (Un-reserved) category (Post Code 729), warranting redrawing of the merit list. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

Training or experience acquired while working as a Constable does not relate to the post of Sub Inspector; the promotional hierarchy from Constable runs through Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector, so mere service as a Constable does not entitle the appellant to the experience/training marks. The Division Bench finds the learned Single Judge's reasoning free of illegality.

¶¶21

Ratio / Principle

¶¶23

Key takeaways

The criteria providing 15 marks under Post Code 729 does not suffer from any arbitrariness.ratio¶¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

LPA No.386 of 2026 (High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla; G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, oral, with Bipin Chander Negi, Judge) — dismissed. The appellant, a serving Constable since 2013, had prayed (CWP No. 1265 of 2020) for 2.5 experience marks and one training mark in the Sub Inspector selection (Post Code 729, OBC Un-reserved; advertisement dated 19.12.2018, Annexure P-5, Clauses 10 & 11 of the 15-marks evaluation scheme incorporated via notification dated 17.04.2017 dispensing interview), claiming he would then secure 45.01 marks against selected respondent No.4's 45.46. Upholding the Single Judge's dismissal of 07.05.2026, the Division Bench holds: experience/training as a Constable is not experience 'relating to the post applied for', the promotional hierarchy running through Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector; no similarly situated Constable-applicant was granted such marks, so there is no Article 14 violation; and the 15-marks criteria under Post Code 729 is not arbitrary. Appeal dismissed along with pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

LPA No.386 of 2026 Decided on : _21.07.2026

¶3

Irfan ... Appellant Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents.

¶4

Coram Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶5

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶6

For the appellant : Mr. Pushpinder Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Kulbhushan Khajuria, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 & 2. : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶7

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶8

Consideration is sought of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 1265 of 2020, titled Irfan vs. State of H.P. and another , whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant has been dismissed on 07.05.2026.

¶9

The prayer in the writ petition was for award of 2.5 marks for experience and one mark for training while preparing the select list for the post of Sub Inspector under the OBC (Un-reserved) category by redrawing the merit list on the ground that he had experience, as he had worked as a Constable since the year 2013 and, therefore,

¶10

had seven years' service and was entitled to 2.5 marks on account of experience.

¶11

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

¶12

-2-

¶13

It was the case of the appellant that had the said marks been awarded to him, he would have secured 45.01 marks, whereas the selected candidate-respondent No.4, belonging to the said category had secured 45.46 marks and would thus be liable to be appointed. The said claim was based on the fact that the advertisement dated 19.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) provided under Clauses 10 & 11 that, out of the 15 marks to be awarded under various heads, 2.5 marks, at the maximum, were to be awarded for experience of five years in Government/Semi-Government organizations relating to the post applied for, at the rate of 0.5 mark for each completed year and one mark for training.

¶14

The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that none of the candidates who were serving as Constables and had applied for the post had been awarded marks either for training or experience and, therefore, since the post of Constable had no connection with the post of Sub Inspector, the action of respondent No. 3 in not awarding such marks was not illegal in any manner. The finding recorded was that the experience gained on the post of Constable could not be treated as experience for the post of Sub Inspector, and in such circumstances, the said benefit was rightly not granted, as the experience had to be relating to the post applied for. The present writ petitioner having not worked on the post of Sub Inspector, was, therefore, not entitled to the said benefit.

¶15

-3-

¶16

A perusal of the advertisement in question would go on to

¶17

show that the advertisement had been issued by the Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, whereby various posts were advertised, including the post of Sub Inspector of Police under Post Code 729. The minimum essential qualifications as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules had been prescribed, besides the physical standards. The posts in question were 33 in number against regular vacancies carrying the prescribed Pay Band and Grade Pay of Rs.10900-34800 +4600 GP. The candidates were also required to undergo the prescribed Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test, consisting of a 1500 - metre race for male candidates and 800 meters race for female candidates as prescribed for the respective categories.

¶18

Apparently, the State, on the strength of the notification issued on 17.04.2017, had dispensed with the interview for direct recruitment to Class-III and Class-IV posts and incorporated the provisions regarding 15 marks of evaluation, whereas the written examination carried 85 marks. The said 15 marks were to be awarded under various heads, namely, backward area, landless family, unemployment, BPL family, NSS certificate holders, widow/divorced/single woman, single daughter orphan, training and experience. Clause 10 and Clause 11 dealt with the award of marks for training of at least six months' duration and experience up to a

¶19

-4-

¶20

maximum of five years, respectively, and also was covered in the break-up of the said 15 marks.

¶21

Thus, the said provisions were inbuilt in the selection process, but as per Clause 11, the experience had to be relating to the post applied for, and the learned Single Judge categorically came to the conclusion that the training or experience acquired while working as a Constable would not suffice, as such, for the post of Sub Inspector. It is not in dispute that the promotional hierarchy from the part of Constable consists of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector and, therefore, merely on account of having worked as a Constable, the appellant would not be entitled to the said benefit.

¶22

The findings are further supported by the specific stand taken by the State in its reply that none of the candidates who had produced training or experience certificates relating to the post of Constable were awarded any marks at the time of evaluation and, therefore, the petitioner could not allege violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The certificates produced by the petitioner could not be related to the post applied for, i.e. Sub Inspector, and the experience gained as a Constable was not considered and connected with the said post and the matter had been fully considered by the Commission.

¶23

We are of the considered opinion that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as all similarly situated candidates were treated alike. The reasonings assigned by the

¶24

-5-

¶25

learned Single Judge for holding that the experience gained as a Constable cannot be treated as experience relating to the post of Sub Inspector, do not suffer from any illegality. We are also of the considered opinion that the criteria providing 15 marks under Post Code 729 does not suffer from any arbitrariness. Consequently, the challenge raised by the appellant is devoid of any merit.

¶26

In view of the above, and the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any plausible reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, along with the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶27

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶28

(Bipin Chander Negi) Judge

¶29

21^st July, 2026 Tarun Singh

Irfan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Verma Vs the State of Hp

Raghubir Singh Rana Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Bhag Singh Sen Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Tara Chand Vs the Financial Commissioner-Cum-Secretary Revenue and Others

Kuldeep Sharma Vs State of Hp and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Shramja Munjal and Others