2026:HHC:20286 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 8332 of 2025 Reserved on: 13.05.2026 Decided on : 27.05.2026 Ranjna Devi .…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajneesh K. Lal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 3. : Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2. : Mr. Rahul Mahajan and Arhant Mahajan, Advocates for respondent No. 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i). That the impugned notice contained in Annexure P-1, press note dated 16.07.2024 contained in Annexure P-5 whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on account of failure to 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:20286 submit requisite documents in support of her eligibility may kindly be quashed and set aside by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) That the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to verify the documents of the petitioner which could not be produced on earlier occasions within a period of one week and thereafter in case the petitioner finds place in the merit for the post of Lecturer (School New) Hindi, Class-III (on contract basis) she may kindly be offered appointment in the department of Higher Education, H.P. w.e.f. the date similarly situated persons have been offered appointment alongwith all consequential benefits.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 17.10.2023, an advertisement was issued by respondent No. 2, in terms whereof, desirous eligible candidates were to appear for the Screening Test and Subject Aptitude Test for the post of Lecturer (School New) Hindi, Class-III, on contract basis, in the Department of Higher Education. The petitioner participated in the Screening Test and Subject Aptitude Test. According to the petitioner, when she appeared in the said examination, she was five months pregnant. Further, as per 3 2026:HHC:20286 the petitioner, on 07.04.2024, respondent declared/ released the list of 185 candidates, who were shortlisted for the document verification on different dates notified therein on the basis of their performance in the Subject Aptitude Test. It is further the case of the petitioner that alongwith said notice, list of finally rejected candidates was also issued and the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she had not submitted her latest OBC certificate from parental basis and further that she had not submitted the consolidated DMC of M.A., in Hindi, as a proof of having passed the Master’s Degree with 50% marks on or before the last date of submission of online application, i.e. 30.11.2023. According to the petitioner, at the time of submission of online application, she had uploaded the consolidated mark sheet of all the semesters of M.A. in Hindi and she had also uploaded the latest caste certificate on parental basis. The petitioner had qualified the TET test in the year 2018. 3. It is further the case of the petitioner that on one hand, the candidature of the petitioner alongwith other candidates was rejected on account of non-production of the documents, but respondent No. 2 allowed the representations 4 2026:HHC:20286 of the rejected candidates and permitted them to produce the documents from 07.06.2024 to 16.06.2024 and the date was further extended to 26.06.2024. Respondent No. 2 also allowed the rejected candidates to re-appear for the purpose of documents verification. The petitioner was also called upon to furnish the documents and for non-production whereof, her candidature was rejected and the date was fixed for 08.07.2024. 4. According to the petitioner, she could not appear before respondent No. 2 on said date on account of her pregnancy. It is further the case of the petitioner that she failed to attend the documents verification on the extended scheduled date because of bonafide reasons, as spelled out in the petition. 5. It is further her case that on account of her earlier miscarriage in the month of May 2024, the petitioner went to Jammu, where the Doctors suggested conducting certain tests and she was advised to remain admitted in Military Hospital Jammu till her delivery. According to the petitioner, she remained in the hospital from May, 2024 till July, 2024 and the extended dates for verification of the documents were 5 2026:HHC:20286 fixed in between the said dates. She did not have any knowledge about the said dates. 6. It was further her case that as she was out of Himachal and was admitted in Hospital in another State, her SIM card of Himachal Pradesh was not functional in Jammu, therefore, she was not aware that she had passed the examination and her candidature stood rejected on account of non-production of documents. 7. It is also averred in the petition that after the issuance of a Press Note dated 16.07.2024, Annexure P-5, which Press Note was for the information of all concerned candidates, who remained absent for documents verification for the post in issue, conducted w.e.f. 08.07.2024 to 15.07.2024 to appear for documents verification. On 18.07.2024, she received telephonic information from her friend about this Press Note. When she became aware of these facts, she came to Shimla on 17.07.2024, to appear before respondent No. 2 but on that date, she was not allowed to appear on the ground that her candidature already stood rejected and it is in this backdrop that the present petition has been filed. 6 2026:HHC:20286 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been candid in submitting that though respondents No. 2 cannot be faulted for the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner, yet, he submitted that as the circumstances, on account whereof, the petitioner could not appear before respondent No. 2 for the purposes of documents verification, were beyond the control of the petitioner, therefore, a sympathetic view be taken in the matter. No other point was urged. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent-Commission submitted that a requisition was received from the Director of Higher Education in the year 2023 for filling up 117 posts of Lecturer (School New), Hindi, on contract basis. Thereafter, an advertisement was issued in this regard on 17.10.2023 and applications were sought from the desirous eligible candidates by 30.11.2023. In all, 9646 applications were received, out of which, 9633 candidates were provisionally admitted and the claim of 13 candidates was rejected for non-submission of requisite examination fee. Screening Test and Subject Aptitude Test was conducted on 07.04.2024. Out of 9633 provisionally admitted candidates, 7 2026:HHC:20286 6903 candidates appeared in Paper-I and 6880 candidates appeared in Paper-II for the abovementioned post. On the basis of the performance of the candidates in the Screening Test and Subject Aptitude Test, the Secrecy Cell provided a list of 192 candidates, falling in the zone of consideration for the scrutiny of documents. After the scrutiny of documents of 192 candidates, documents of 150 candidates were found in order and they were admitted provisionally and the candidature of remaining 42 candidates, including the petitioner was provisionally rejected for different reasons. The list of provisionally rejected candidates was uploaded on the website of the official website of the Commission, by giving them 10 days time to file the representations, if any, against their rejection up to 16.07.2024. The candidates were also intimated the same through SMS on their registered Mobile numbers and e-mail address as were provided by them on their online applications. This was done as per Rule 6(B) (ix) to (xv) and Rule 6(E) (i)) of the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Transaction of Business) Rules, 2023, appended with the reply as Annexure R-2/1. 8 2026:HHC:20286 10. Out of the 42 provisionally rejected candidates, 35 candidates filed their representations. After the screening of their documents, they were allowed to participate in the process. The petitioner did not file any representation against her provisional rejection and her candidature was rejected by the Commission. 11. It is also the stand of the said respondent that the petitioner had uploaded only a copy of the 4th Semester, Hindi marks certificate with online application alongwith other documents, which are appended with the reply as Annexure R-2/2. It is also the stand of the said respondent that on the basis of the detailed marks certificate of the 4th Semester of MA Hindi, it was not possible to ascertain the eligibility of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had passed the MA in Hindi or not. 12. Further, the validity of OBC category certificate submitted by the petitioner had expired on 20.04.2024 and a fresh valid certificate was required to be submitted by her. It is further the stand of the said respondent that out of 192 candidates falling in the zone of consideration, 185 candidates were found eligible and were called for the 9 2026:HHC:20286 document verification between 08.07.2024 to 18.07.2024 in terms of the notice uploaded on the website of the respondent-Commission. The roll number of the petitioner did not figure in the said list because her candidature earlier stood rejected finally by the commission. It is further the stand of the commission that though the petitioner had filed a representation on 18.07.2024 that her candidature be considered for the post in issue but the same was rejected. 13. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that in the present case, entire information of the selection process was made available to the candidates on the website of the commission and on the e-mails as well as through SMS on the Mobile Numbers provided by the candidates to the commission. He submitted that herein it is not as if the respondent-Commission was remiss in its duties or that it failed to inform the petitioner of the lacunae in her documents. He submitted that the entire process was conducted in a transparent manner and because the petitioner did not appear before the commission for the removal of the lacunae pointed out in her candidature, the 10 2026:HHC:20286 rejection of the candidature of the petitioner cannot be faulted with. 14. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 15. The facts as are mentioned hereinabove are not much in dispute. It was candidly admitted on behalf of the petitioner that because of the fact that she was in Jammu, admitted in a Hospital due to her pregnancy and as the SIM of her phone number was not functional, therefore, she missed the SMS sent to her mobile number as well as the E- mail that was sent to her e-mail address by the commission. 16. This Court is of the considered view that in these peculiar circumstances, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief which is being prayed for. The process which was undertaken by the respondent-Commission resulted in thousands of candidates approaching the commission to participate in the selection process. The successful candidates have already been appointed against the post in issue. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is on account of her not furnishing a valid OBC certificate from the parental 11 2026:HHC:20286 side, at the time of verification of documents, as also on account of her failure to produce the complete mark sheet of her MA Hindi examination, which as per the respondent- Commission, were not uploaded completely with the online application submitted by the petitioner. 17. The factum of the petitioner having been informed of these lacunae through e-mail as well as SMS has not been disputed by her. Her contention is that her mobile phone was not functional in Jammu. If that is so, obviously, for that, the Commission cannot be blamed. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the pre-paid phones were not functional in Jammu can also not come to the assistance of the petitioner for the reason that nothing prevented the petitioner from getting a post-paid mobile number and intimating the Commission regarding change of her mobile number. Besides this, nothing prevented the petitioner to be in touch with her other friends, who had also participated in the selection process because it is not her case that even a single person known to her had not participated in the process besides her. Further it is not as if the list of selected as well as rejected candidates was not uploaded by the 12 2026:HHC:20286 Commission on its website and the petitioner could have easily accessed the website of the Public Service Commission and kept herself updated of the developments, which were taking place qua the selection process for filling of the post in issue. 18. Therefore, these aspects are a clear indicator of the fact that the respondent-Commission is not at fault. May be the circumstances, on account whereof, the petitioner could not appear before the Commission, were beyond her control, but then the Court cannot give the benefit of the same to the petitioner herein, as the rights of others stand crystallized in the interregnum and they stand appointed against the post in issue. 19. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) May 27, 2026 Judge (narender)