Introduction:

In the case Yashwant Mandhotra v. Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Others, bearing CWP No. 4241 of 2023 and decided on 06.06.2025, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, comprising Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma, laid down a clear and strict interpretation of service eligibility in the context of inter-departmental transfers. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Yashwant Mandhotra, who had sought quashing of a selection list for the post of translator in the High Court Registry and requested a direction for redrawing the result by considering his past service in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu. The case arose when the Himachal Pradesh High Court invited applications on 04.08.2022 for the post of translator, open to eligible Class-III and Class-IV employees of the Registry. One of the key eligibility criteria required applicants to have completed at least five years of continuous service in the High Court Registry as of the cut-off date, i.e., 20.09.2022.

Arguments:

The petitioner, represented by Advocate K.B. Khajuria, applied for the post stating that his initial date of appointment was 30.12.2016 when he joined as a Copyist in the Civil and Sessions Division, Kullu. He was later transferred to the High Court Registry on 02.06.2018 and contended that the duration from 2016 to 2018 should be considered toward the five-year eligibility criterion. In support, he referred to a precedent wherein a Junior Office Assistant in the Civil and Sessions Division, Solan, had his contractual service counted towards service benefits after his transfer to the High Court Registry. However, the High Court administration rejected the petitioner’s application at the threshold, without permitting him to even sit for the departmental examination, citing that he did not fulfill the required five years of service in the Registry by the cut-off date.

The respondents, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Rajiv Jiwan along with Mr. Nitin Thakur, opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner’s transfer order had clearly mentioned that his prior service in the Civil Court would be forfeited and that no seniority could be claimed in the future based on that service. This clause was unequivocal and binding on the petitioner, who had accepted the transfer on these terms. Furthermore, it was argued that applying any leniency in the interpretation of eligibility criteria would amount to arbitrarily relaxing recruitment rules and unjustly harming other deserving candidates. The petitioner’s plea was that once he had been permitted to sit for the exam by the Grievance Committee and the Acting Chief Justice based on the recommendation influenced by the Solan case, he had a legitimate expectation that his application would be fairly considered. He appeared for the written examination, secured 56 out of 90 marks, and proceeded to the interview stage.

Judgement:

However, following objections raised by other employees of the Registry regarding his ineligibility, his case was re-examined. Upon reevaluation, the then Chief Justice rejected the petitioner’s candidature citing that the prior approval allowing him to appear for the examination was granted without due consideration of the transfer order’s stipulations and the eligibility norms laid down in the Himachal Pradesh High Court Staff Rules, 2015. The High Court found that the earlier recommendation by the Grievance Committee and subsequent acceptance by the Acting Chief Justice were made without examining the rules thoroughly. The court noted that if the petitioner’s service from his previous post were to be considered, it would undermine the fairness of the recruitment process and could cause dissatisfaction among other eligible candidates who had been working continuously in the High Court Registry. Moreover, it would result in granting eligibility to an individual who was otherwise disqualified as per the governing rules, thus infringing upon the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality of opportunity in public employment. The bench emphasized that service rules must be strictly complied with and cannot be bent or relaxed for individual benefit, especially where the language of the relevant rule or clause in the transfer order is clear and unambiguous. Allowing the petitioner to claim eligibility and seniority on the basis of his past service, despite an express forfeiture clause, would amount to rewriting the service rules, which the Court cannot do. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Municipal Administration & Anr v. M.C. Sheela Evanjalin & Ors. (2020), wherein it was held that mere possession of educational qualifications does not confer the right to appointment unless the candidate also satisfies all other criteria specified in the recruitment rules. The Himachal Pradesh High Court applied this principle to observe that the petitioner’s educational qualifications or successful performance in the exam did not cure the fundamental defect of ineligibility. The Court further noted that the service in the Civil and Sessions Division could not be equated with service in the High Court Registry, as each administrative wing maintains its own cadre and service records, and lateral movement through transfer comes with specific conditions, particularly when the transfer order explicitly denies future seniority rights. It reiterated that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the terms of transfer and could not now seek to avoid the consequences by relying on a favorable precedent that had no legal bearing on his case. It was clarified that even the decision in the Solan Junior Office Assistant case was not binding and was likely based on a different factual matrix or administrative oversight. The Court held that administrative or quasi-judicial errors in one case could not justify similar errors in others, especially when such decisions contradict clear statutory provisions. Hence, the petitioner’s reliance on past precedents could not override the binding terms of his transfer order. The judges observed that bending the rules in such a manner would open the floodgates for claims from other similarly placed employees and disrupt the structured promotion and appointment process established for the Registry’s staff. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s previous service from 30.12.2016 to 01.06.2018 could not be counted for eligibility and seniority. Since he had joined the Registry only on 02.06.2018, and the cut-off date was 20.09.2022, he had not completed the requisite five years of continuous service. Thus, his candidature was rightly rejected, and the selection process carried out by the High Court was deemed fair, valid, and in accordance with the rules. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the decision of the then Chief Justice and safeguarding the integrity of recruitment under the High Court Staff Rules.