IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.20033 of 2025 Date of Decision: 7.1.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar and Ors. ……...Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) In terms of order dated 19.12.2025, Mr. Anish Banshtu, learned Deputy Advocate General, has placed on record communication dated 6.1.2026 issued by Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Nohradhar, enclosing therewith copy of communication dated 1.1.2026 issued by the Chairman cum Executive Engineer, Jal Shakti Division, Nohradhar, addressed to members of Selection Committee, to state that meeting of Selection Committee has been fixed on 20.1.2026 to review the merit list. 2. Having perused aforesaid communication, which is taken on record, this Court finds that respondents themselves have admitted factum with regard to inadvertent Bonafide mistake occurred in the application of the roster while preparing the result. While stating that error was purely procedural intentionally without any malafides, it has - 2 - been undertaken through afore communication that meeting has been fixed on 20.1.2026 at 11:00 AM, to review the merit list and the manner of application of the roster, strictly in accordance with the prescribed roster instructions issued by the Government. 3. In the case at hand, petitioners herein are aggrieved on account of the fact that two candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category and One candidate belonging to OBC Category had obtained more marks than the candidate belonging to the General Category, as such ought to have been given appointment against the seat reserved for General Category and in that eventuality, seat otherwise occupied by afore candidates would have been given to the petitioners, who belong to the categories of OBC and SC. 4. 4. It is quite apparent from the afore communication that aforesaid procedure, which is otherwise required to be followed in the facts and circumstances of the present case has not been followed, as a result thereof, two candidates belonging to the SC category and one belonging to the OBC Category, who, in the event of getting shifted to General Category, on account of their having secured more marks than the candidates belonging to General Category, would have secured the place for candidates belonging to categories of SC and OBC. 5. Since respondents themselves have undertaken to rectify their mistake, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant - 3 - proceedings. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to ensure that needful as has been otherwise undertaken to be done vide communication dated 6.1.2026 is done expeditiously on or before 31.1.2026. In case thereafter, petitioners herein become eligible for appointment against two seats of SC category and one post of OBC category respectively, they may be given appointment. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. January 7, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge