YASHWANT MANDHOTRA V. HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HP & ORS 2025:HHC:17984:

DATE: 06/06/2025

COURT: High Court of Himachal Pradesh

BENCH: Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma

FACTS:

The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Translator in the High Court, which was open to Class-III and Class-IV employees with a minimum of five years of service in the Registry. The petitioner contended that he was wrongfully disqualified at the interview stage on 26.06.2023, as per the final result (Annexure P-9), on the ground that he lacked the requisite five years of service in the Registry. He argued that his prior service as a Clerk in the Establishment of the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu, rendered from 30.12.2016 to 01.06.2018 should have been counted toward fulfilling the eligibility criteria. He maintained that this period of service was of a continuous nature and part of his overall tenure under the High Court system, and therefore ought to have been included when calculating his qualifying service.

During the recruitment process, the petitioner submitted a representation on 01.02.2023 (Annexure P-6), seeking reconsideration of his eligibility. The Grievance Committee of the High Court reviewed his case and accepted his representation. This decision was further approved by the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice on 05.04.2023 and communicated to the petitioner on 18.04.2023 (Annexure P-7), thereby allowing him to appear for the limited competitive examination for the post of Translator. However, despite this prior approval, the petitioner was later declared ineligible at the interview stage by respondent No. 1 on the administrative side, on the ground that he did not meet the required five-year service condition. The petitioner now seeks a declaration to quash the final result, a recognition of his eligibility, and a direction to redraw the selection outcome accordingly.

ISSUES:

The core issue in this case was whether the petitioner could claim eligibility for the post of Translator based on his previous service in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu, which he sought to include towards fulfilling the required five years of service in the Registry of the High Court. The petitioner contended that his earlier service, though prior to his formal absorption into the Registry on 02.06.2018, should be counted, especially since his eligibility was initially accepted by the Grievance Committee and approved by the then Acting Chief Justice. However, the validity of this acceptance was later reconsidered and overruled by the then Chief Justice on 27.06.2023. The case thus centered on whether the petitioner was estopped from claiming the benefit of his prior service, and whether allowing such a claim would violate the principles of fairness and equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by adversely affecting other eligible candidates.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking eligibility for the post of Translator, ruling that he did not meet the required five years of service in the High Court Registry as of the cut-off date. The Court held that the petitioner could not rely on his prior service in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu, as it was expressly forfeited upon his absorption into the Registry on 02.06.2018, and thus, his claim for consideration was untenable under the applicable rules and constitutional principles.

The Court clarified that eligibility for the post of Translator under the limited competitive examination was strictly governed by the requirement of five years of continuous service in the Registry of the High Court, and the relevant cut-off date was 20.09.2022. While the petitioner’s earlier representation had been accepted by the Grievance Committee and endorsed by the then Acting Chief Justice, this was later reconsidered and overruled by the then Chief Justice after receiving objections from private respondents. The Court observed that this reconsideration was valid, and there was no estoppel against the High Court in disqualifying the petitioner, especially since he was contractually bound by the terms of his transfer and absorption, which expressly forfeited his prior seniority and service history in the District Judiciary.

The Court emphasized that accepting the petitioner’s plea would amount to granting eligibility to someone who was ineligible on the cut-off date, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by unfairly affecting the legitimate expectations of other eligible candidates. The Bench further underscored that the right to be considered under a selection process must exist within the statutory framework and cannot override the recruitment rules. It reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued unless a clear legal right exists. Since the petitioner lacked the prescribed service duration within the Registry and had no vested right to be considered outside the scope of the rules, the Court concluded that his writ petition was devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

ANALYSIS:

This case highlights the legal rigidity of service eligibility requirements in judicial appointments and reinforces the primacy of recruitment rules over administrative discretion. While the petitioner’s initial inclusion in the selection process, based on the Grievance Committee’s recommendation and Acting Chief Justice’s approval gave rise to a legitimate expectation, the Court decisively held that such administrative approvals cannot override statutory conditions laid down in the recruitment rules. The Court affirmed that eligibility must be assessed strictly as per the criteria mentioned in the rules, particularly the condition of five years of service within the Registry of the High Court. The petitioner’s earlier service in the Civil and Sessions Division, although within the judicial system, could not be counted post his formal transfer and forfeiture of seniority. This underscores the legal principle that administrative concessions do not create enforceable rights when they contravene statutory norms.

The decision also reflects a balanced consideration of equity and constitutional fairness under Articles 14 and 16. The Court recognized that allowing the petitioner’s claim would not only bend the rules for one individual but also jeopardize the rights of other similarly placed or waiting candidates who could become eligible in due course. The rejection of the estoppel argument illustrates that judicial employees cannot selectively invoke past service to gain present advantages when such service has been expressly relinquished through formal transfer conditions. In essence, the Court’s judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the sanctity of recruitment rules, the importance of maintaining procedural integrity in public employment, and the need to uphold equal opportunity for all eligible candidates in the public sector.