IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.10672 of 2023 Decided on: 7th May, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Raji Kumari …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishwinder Singh, Advocate vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge In the selection process held by respondents No.1 to 4 on 21.03.2023, respondent No.5 was selected as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Aghahar, Gram Panchayat Baat, Tehsil and District Chamba. Petitioner filed appeal against selection of respondent No.5 on 11.04.2023 before the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba. The sole ground for assailing the selection and 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 appointment of respondent No.5 was that the petitioner was most eligible candidate for the post. She was entitled to get employment as Anganwari Helper. That respondent No.5’s selection was illegal and unlawful. The appellate authority, i.e. the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba perused the record pertaining to selection of Anganwari Helper for the concerned Anganwari Centre. The record demonstrated that the selection committee adjudged the performance of participating candidates during personal interview, considered their eligibility and based upon that, petitioner was given 15.5 marks, whereas respondent No.5 got 16 marks. Accordingly, respondent No.5 was selected and offered appointment to the post of Anganwari Helper. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved against the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba on 11.08.2023, has taken recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection committee had not adjudged performance of the participating candidates fairly. This bald assertion lacks substance. It is well settled that the Court, while exercising power of judicial 3 review, can neither step into shoes of Selection Committee nor can assume appellate role to examine justiciability of the marks awarded by the selection committee. Assessment and evaluation of performance of candidates should be best left to wisdom of committee (Ref.: Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others Versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others2). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that respondent No.5 had been wrongly awarded 03 marks on account of her being matriculate. In fact, respondent No.5 had not passed matriculation examination. She had been declared ‘fail’ in the subject of Sanskrit. 3(i). The above contention also is without any merit. The petitioner had not raised this point before the Additional District Magistrate, Chamba. In case, she was aggrieved against award of 03 marks to respondent No.5 on account of her being matriculate, it was for her to raise this issue before the appellate authority, which she failed to do. 3(ii). The matriculation certificate of respondent No.5, issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, has been placed on record, which shows 2 (2023) 17 SCC 147 4 respondent No.5 to have passed subjects of English, Mathematics, Hindi, Social Science, Science & Technology and Art. The certificate reflects respondent No.5 to have passed matriculation examination with 247 marks out of total 700 marks and placed in 3rd division. The certificate shows respondent No.5 to have failed in the subject of Sanskrit, having secured 21 marks. 3(iii). Alongwith her reply, respondent No.5 has placed on record information received under the Right to Information Act from H.P. Board of School Education. The ‘Scheme of Studies ‘and pass criteria in respect of 10th class of Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education provides as under:- “The result of Matriculation Examination will be furnished in terms of marks for each subject secured in the examination. (i) In order to pass the examination a regular candidate will be required to obtain 33% marks both in external examination and aggregate of a subject combined with Internal Assessment in English, Hindi, Mathematics, Science and Technology and Social Sciences each and any one of the remaining two subjects i.e. (a) Regional Languages (b) One Elective Subject. (ii) In order to pass the examination, a candidate appearing in private capacity will be required to obtain 33% marks in Compulsory subjects each of Group I and any one of the remaining two subjects i.e. Regional Language and one Elective subject of Group II of Scheme of Studies. (iii) ………………. 5 (iv) The marks of failure subject will not be included in the aggregate.” Since respondent No.5 in addition to having passed subjects of English, Hindi, Mathematics, Science & Technology and Social Science, had also passed one elective subject, i.e. Art, therefore, her having failed in second elective subject of Sanskrit, became immaterial and it is for this reason that the H.P. Board of School Education issued matriculation certificate in her favour of having passed the matriculation examination in 3rd division. 4. Since both the contentions of the petitioner stand rejected, therefore, I find no merit in the instant writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Jyotsna Rewal Dua May 07, 2025 Judge Mukesh