1 2025:HHC:23593 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 729 of 2024 Date of decision: 18.07.2025 _______________________________________________________ Ankit Sharma …..Petitioner Versus High Court of HP & another …Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Surya Narayan Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Ghebroo, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Abhimanyu Rathore, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the Overall Result (Annexure P- 3) alongwith Final Merit List dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-4) and to declare him as qualified in 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 English Typing Test and to prepare fresh Merit List for the post of Protocol Officer in the establishment of District Judiciary. 2. The writ petition had been initially dismissed on 26.02.2024 and the matter was then taken to the Supreme Court in SLP (C) 5343 of 2024 and an interim order had been passed on 07.03.2024, whereby one post of the Protocol Officer was ordered to be kept vacant. Eventually, the matter has been remanded vide order dated 13.09.2024, by holding that the typing test required a candidate to type out 300 words and all the errors from the extra words typed out by a candidate were wrongly taken as errors, which had been taken to disqualify the petitioner. If the errors only in 300 words were seen, there were only seven errors, which were well below the 10% errors to be condoned. The Himachal Pradesh District Judiciary Staff (Recruitment, Promotion, Control, Conduct, Discipline and Other Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022 (for short “the Rules”) were referred to and, therefore, the matter was remanded 3 for fresh decision. The relevant portion as such reads as under: “ 7.Admittedly the appellant had secured 48 marks and the second respondent had secured 45 marks in the written test. However, since the appellant is shown to have failed in the typing test, he was not considered for appointment. 8. The typing test requires a candidate to type 300 words which the appellant has done within the prescribed time limit. In the typing test 10% error is condonable. The typing test details are available at Page 114. While the errors in the entire typing text is below 10%, all the extra words typed out by the candidate were taken as errors and thus instead of 7 actual mistakes, the appellant is shown to have committed 67 mistakes in his typing test. This is done only because extra words were typed by the appellant. 9. The above would show that the appellant's typing skills are quite good but the authorities evaluated his performance negatively. This is not the correct approach and unacceptable. Moreover, if the candidates are to be selected on their performance in the 4 written examination, as per the Rules, the typing test cannot be brought in, to disqualify the candidate. But this was done in the instant case. 10. The Division Bench of the High Court however did not appreciate the above contention with the observation that the appellant had crossed the word limit of 300 words within the maximum time limit of 10 minutes and there were several mistakes in the typing test. As earlier noticed, the mistakes in the entire typing test were only for 7 words and that is well below the 10% errors condoned by the Rules. 11. In the above circumstances, the view taken by the High Court in the impugned judgment dated (26.02.2024) is found unsustainable. The same is therefore set aside and quashed. The matter is remitted back to the High Court for de novo consideration. During the remanded proceedings, opportunities be given to all affected parties. 12. The Appeal is allowed in above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.” 5 3. The Apex Court had relied upon the relevant Rules, i.e. Part 6 of Schedule III of the Rules to come to the above conclusion. 4. In the typing test, the speed was 30 words per minute and the time for typing was 10 minutes as per Note-1 given in the Rules. The said reasoning as such had been arrived at by the Apex Court. In such circumstances, the petitioner by the result declared (Annexure P-3) had been held not qualified only on account of the fact that he had typed out extra words which were taken as mistakes. 5. The List of Candidates shortlisted for document verification as such who had qualified the written/main test and typing test (English and Hindi for the post of Protocol Officer on the Establishment of District Judiciary held on 02.07.2023, shows that the private respondent had secured the qualified marks i.e. 45, whereas the petitioner had secured 48 marks. By virtue of the order of the Apex Court, the petitioner is now liable to be considered by this Court for 6 appointment against the one post of Protocol Officer, which is vacant. 6. The Registrar General of this Court has filed the necessary affidavit dated 09.07.2025, wherein it has been mentioned that one post of Protocol Officer has been kept vacant in the Civil and Sessions Division, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh. 7. Resultantly, we dispose of the writ petition by directing respondent No.1 to complete the exercise as such for filling up the post of Protocol Officer, as per the merit, in view of the observations made by the Apex Court and Note-3 of the Rules, which provides that the Final Merit List has to be drawn on the basis of the marks obtained in the written test. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. July 18, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.