IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3400 of 2023 Decided on: 01.01.2026 _________________________________________________________________ Ms. Prikshit Bharotha ....Petitioner Versus The H.P. Public Service Commission and Ors …Respondents _________________________________________________________________ Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua 1 Whether approved for reporting? _________________________________________________________________ For the petitioner: Mr. Shubham Sood and Mr. Varun Chauhan, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Rajesh Kashyap, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioner remained unsuccessful in the selection process. He seeks quashing and setting aside of the notice dated 25.03.2023 to the extent the same recommends the name of respondent No.3 for appointment under the General Category and name of one Sh. Prateek, under Economically 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes - 2 - Weaker Section (EWS) Category. In case the above relief is allowed, then according to the petitioner, she would make it to the select list of candidates under EWS Category. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 3. Respondent No.1 on 16.03.2022, issued an advertisement for filling up 76 posts of Assistant Engineer (Electrical), out which, 27 were meant for Unreserved and 7 for EWS of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner participated in the selection process against EWS Category posts. Combined merit list for the posts in question was issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure P-4. At Sr. Nos. 1-26 of the said list were the candidates belonging to Unreserved Category. The candidate at Sr. No.26 had scored 61 marks. One Sh. Prateek belonging to EWS Category figured at Sr. No.27, having also scored 61 marks. Respondent No.3, Sh. Abhishek Kumar, belonging to Unreserved Category appeared at Sr. No.28 of the merit list with 60 marks. At Sr. No.45 was one Sh. Akshay Kumar, who belongs to EWS Category and had scored 56 marks. Name of the petitioner was reflected at Sr. No.46 of the - 3 - combined merit list as belonging to EWS Category with 55 marks. The case of the petitioner is that respondents had wrongly adjusted Sh. Prateek under EWS Category. He having scored 61 marks i.e. above 60 marks scored by respondent No.3, was liable to be shifted from EWS Category to the Unreserved Category; Had the respondents taken this lawful recourse, then all 27 seats meant for Unreserved Category would have been exhausted with Sh. Prateek (EWS) at Sr. 27 of the Unreserved Category slot. As a fall out of this process, 7th post meant for EWS Category would have gone to the petitioner. 4. Respondents in their reply have justified not shifting Sh. Prateek from EWS Category to Unreserved Category despite his having obtained 61 marks i.e. above the cut-off of 60 marks under the Unreserved Category. According to the respondents, aforesaid Sh. Prateek had been beneficiary of relaxed standard having applied under EWS Category and, therefore, could not be shifted from EWS Category to Unreserved Category. In terms of the reply filed by the respondents, Prateek had scored - 4 - 54.50 and 60 marks, in the screening and personality test, respectively as against the cut off marks of screening test of Unreserved Category i.e. 54.71. The above factual position of Sh. Prateek having availed relaxed standard has not been refuted by the petitioner. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed. It is well settled by now that candidates belonging to Reserved Categories, who have taken benefit of relaxed standards, cannot be migrated to Unreserved vacancies (Reference:- Man Mohan Kapoor Vs. State of H.P. and Ors2) . Hence, claim of the petitioner cannot be allowed. 5 Consequently, there is no merit in the present writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge January 1, 2026 R.Atal 2 CWPOA No.7692 of 2020 decided on 26.02.2021