( 2025:HHC:21726 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 2577 of 2019. Reserved on: 2 6 th June, 2025. Decided on : 8 th July, 2025. Ashwini Kumar .. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Others ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Narender Sharma and Ms. Meenakshi Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Amandeep Sharma, Addl. A.G. Satyen Vaidya, Judge. By way of instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief:- “1. To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent/appellant to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of B-1 test 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:21726 ) paper-1 and paper-2 through some independent agency and supply details to the petitioner.” 2. Petitioner is a constable in Himachal Pradesh Police. He aspired to be promoted to the post of Head Constable for which he had to be placed in list -B of the concerned District in terms of the provisions of Punjab Police Rules as made applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 3. To qualify for being placed in list-B of the District, the petitioner was required to pass B-1 test. 4. Petitioner appeared in B-1 test held in January, 2010 but remained unsuccessful. He could secure 33 and 34.5 marks as against the requirement of qualifying marks of 37.5 in each test. 5. Petitioner being dissatisfied applied for reevaluation of the answer sheets. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 2174 OF 2010. The said petition was disposed of on 19.06.2010 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in following terms:- 3 ( 2025:HHC:21726 ) “The petitioner has prayed for following relief in the writ petition:- To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of B-1 test paper-1 and paper-2. 2. It is seen that petitioner vide Annexure P-4 has made a representation before respondent No.2 which is pending before him. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Police to look into the representation Annexure P-4 and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and justice without discriminating the petitioner. The needful shall be done within one month from the date of production of the copy of the judgment alongwith copy of the writ petition by the petitioner.” 6. In compliance to the aforesaid order, the answer sheets of the petitioner were reevaluated and it was communicated that even on reevaluation no change in marks was suggested. Still being dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the instant petition. His claim is that the answer sheets were not properly evaluated as the petitioner had attempted all the answers and was expecting a very high score. 4 ( 2025:HHC:21726 ) 7. The respondents have filed the reply and have submitted that in compliance to order dated 29.06.2010 passed in CWP No. 2174 of 2010, a committee consisting of DIG (Administration), Assistant Inspector General of Police (Head Quarter) and Commandant 6th Indian Reserve Battalion was constituted to reevaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner. The committee after examination of answer sheets had decided that no change in the marks was suggested. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 9. It is more than settled that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction should not endeavor to substitute the decision taken by the experts. The scope of judicial review in such matter has already been considered in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and 5 ( 2025:HHC:21726 ) another (2010) 6 SCC 759, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” 10. It is not the case of the petitioner that the committee, that reevaluated the answer sheets was not competent to do so. Two sets of examiners have checked the answer sheets of petitioner and both of them have concurred with the marks awarded to the petitioner. The self-evaluation of the petitioner 6 ( 2025:HHC:21726 ) cannot be over and above the evaluation by the experts. 11. The petitioner has also not alleged any malafides against the respondents or any specific officer/official. 12. It cannot be ignored that 15 years have already elapsed since the petitioner had appeared in B-1 test. Nothing has been placed on record to show that after 2010, the petitioner has qualified the said test. 13. In the given circumstances, the relief as prayed in the petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 8th July, 2025. (jai)