IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.17478 of 2025 Date of Decision: 04.12.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ritik Tomar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Ms. Aanchal Singh and Ms. Nandita, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocate Generals, Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents-State. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Precise grouse of the petitioner, who had applied for the post of Police Constable in the Police Department pursuant to advertisement issued by respondent No.3-Commisison is that key answer given to Question No. 87 in Series-D was wrong, as a result thereof, he was deprived of one mark for his having answered correct answer. 2. Though before filing petition at hand, petitioner raised objection qua the key answer, but since nothing was heard in that regard from respondent No.3, he has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs: 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 “(i) That the respondent may very kindly be directed to recheck the answer of question No. 87 in Series ‘D’ of the Petitioner and award 1 mark for the same by directing the respondents to revise the final result of the Police Constable recruitment process by issuing a Writ of Mandamus. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint an expert for checking the answer of question No. 87 in D Series.” 3. Before notices, if any, could be issued to the respondents, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-Commission. He, on instructions, states that since number of objections were received with regard to key answer of Question No.87 in Series-D, Respondent- Commission referred the dispute to the second examiner, who has found merit in the objection raised at the behest of the objectors including the present petitioner and accordingly, petitioner herein is entitled for one additional mark for his having given correct answer to Question No.87 in Series D. 4. In view of the fair stand adopted by Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the instant petition, accordingly, same is disposed of with direction to the respondent-Commission to ensure that petitioner herein is awarded one additional mark for his having given correct answer to Question No. 87 in Series D. Needless to say, name of the petitioner shall be placed in the revised merit list if he is able to secure more marks than cut of marks. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge December 04,2025 (shankar)