1. Respondent Himachal Road Transport Corporation (for short “HRTC”) advertised 1000 posts of Transport Multiple Purpose Assistants (for short “TMPA”) vide the advertisement dated 3rdAugust, 2017 (Annexure A-3). Subsequently vide corrigendum Annexure A-4, posts of Transport Multiple Purpose Assistants were increased from 1000 to 1300. Details of posts, educational qualifications and emoluments as advertised in the advertisement (Annexures A-3 and A-4) as referred hereinabove, are as under:

ANNEXURE A-3

DETAILS OF CATEGORY-WISE NUMBER OF VACNACIES

Annexure A-4

DETAILS OF CATEGORY-WISE NUMBER OF VACANCIES

2. Though, some of the posts, as detailed hereinabove, were reserved for Ex-servicemen General Category, but petitioners herein being wards of Ex-servicemen also filled the form of that category and interestingly, all of them were permitted to participate in the selection process and they were kept in select list of 1235 after document verification. Since, names of the petitioners did not figure in the final selection list, they approached erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Applications No. No.3649 of 2018 and 3460 of 2018, which now stand transferred to this Court and stands re- registered as CWPOA No. 2531 of 2019 and CWPOA No.4655 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs:-

“(i). That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the case of the original applicants for appointment as Transport Multipurpose Assistant in Ex-servicemen category.

(ii) That the respondents be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to this case for the perusal of this Hon’ble Court for adjudication of the applicant’s claim”.

3. Reply to the petition stands filed on behalf of respondent- HRTC, wherein factum with regard petitioners having participated in the selection process though has not been denied, but it has been categorically stated that since posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen only and not for the ward of Ex-servicemen, there was no occasion to consider the candidatures of the petitioners against the posts reserved for the Ex-servicemen.

4. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, this court finds that at no point of time posts, if any, came to be advertised for the wards of Ex-servicemen, rather detail of posts, as given in the advertisement taken note hereinabove, clearly reveals that posts were kept vacant for the category of Ex-servicemen. It is not understood that once posts were not reserved for the ward of Ex-servicemen, where was the occasion for respondent-HRTC to entertain the applications filed by the wards of the Ex-servicemen and thereafter to permit them to participate in the selection process.

5. Sh. Vijender Katoch, learned counsel representing petitioners while inviting attention of this Court to communication dated 9th June, 2014 (Annexure R2/A) issued from the office of Principle Secretary (Personnel) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vehemently argued that when Ex-servicemen are not available, those posts are to be carry forward and subsequently to be filled up amongst ward of the Ex-servicemen and as such, respondent- HRTC ought to have offered them appointment on the basis of their merit.

6. This Court having carefully perused aforesaid communication vis-à-vis submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners, finds no merit in the submission of counsel representing the petitioners, especially when at no point of time, posts, if any, ever came to be advertised for the category of wards of Ex-servicemen. Careful perusal of advertisement (Annexures A-3 and A-4), clearly reveals that in different categories posts were advertised for the category of Ex-servicemen and there is no mention in the advertisement that the wards of the Ex-servicemen could apply against the posts in question. No doubt, respondent-HRTC entertained the applications and permitted petitioners to participate in selection process, but mere participation will not confer any right upon the petitioners to be selected against the posts, which otherwise were not meant for them. True, it is that notification dated 9th June 2014 reveals that in the event of non-availability of suitable candidates in the category of Ex-servicemen, the vacancy is to be carried forward for four calendar years and in the 5th years, same is to be filled up from the eligible dependent sons, daughters and wives of Ex-servicemen, meaning thereby, if Ex-servicemen would not be available for appointment against the post kept for Ex-servicemen, the post reserved for by Ex-servicemen shall be filed up by dependent sons, daughters and wives of Ex-servicemen in first attempt with prior concurrence with Ex-servicemen cell Himachal Pradesh. In case, sons, daughters and wives of Ex-servicemen for posts authorized to be filled in the first attempt are not available then reservation is to be carried forward to four calendar years. In the case at hand, posts came to be reserved for category of Ex-servicemen, which if were not available, respondent No.2 ought to have carry forwarded those vacancies in terms of instructions contained in order dated 9th June, 2014, so that in subsequent year same could be filled up amongst dependent sons, daughters and wives of Ex-servicemen, but definitely posts, as advertised vide Annexures A-3 and A-4, could not be filled up directly amongst sons, daughter and wives of Ex- servicemen.

7. Leaving everything aside, when such posts were never advertised for the category of wards of Ex-servicemen, there was otherwise no occasion for the Department to consider the candidature of the petitioners.

8. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions and accordingly same are dismissed. However, before parting this Court
wish to put a word of caution to the respondent- Himachal Road Transport Corporation to be more careful in future while dealing with selection. Had respondent-HRTC scrutinized the applications as well as documents furnished by the petitioners vis-a-vis advertisement (Annexure A-3) carefully, probably candidature of the petitioners herein would have been rejected at the scrutiny level. Once respondent-HRTC permitted the petitioners to participate in the selection process, they were rightly legitimately expecting them to be appointed against the posts in question, especially when there was no clarity, if any, with regard to eligibility to apply against the posts in question.

9. Copy of instant judgment may be supplied by the Registry directly to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, so that necessary instructions are issued to the Departments to avoid such confusions/ambiguity in future. Pending applications, if any also stands disposed.