2026:HHC:23594 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.7703 of 2025 Decided on: 16.06.2026 Smt. Sunita Devi … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. L.S. Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “a) That the respondents may be directed to declare the result of the petitioner to the post of Drawing Master-980. (b) That in case, after the declaration of the result the petitioner is found successful in her exam, then she should be offered appointment for the post of Drawing Master-980.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that in terms of Advertisement dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-1), the then Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur, H.P. invited applications from the eligible candidates for various posts, including the post of Drawing Master in the Education Department. Candidates were called upon to submit their Online 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23594 recruitment applications by 30.06.2022. The petitioner being eligible to participate in the process, applied for the same by submitting her Online application. She was issued an Admit Card to participate in the written objective test for the post of Drawing Master in terms of Annexure P-2, scheduled for 08.10.2022. The petitioner participated in the said written test. 3. An First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7,8 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, on 03.03.2023, at State Vigilance Police Station, Hamirpur, against Nikhil Azad, Uma Azad and the petitioner regarding leak of question paper from Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur. In terms of the contents of said FIR, malpractices/suspicions were reported by various sources in the conduct of a number of examinations held by Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission, Hamirpur and enquiry No. SIT-5/2023 was ordered into the conduct of the examimation to the post of Drawing Master Post Code-980 by said Commission. Same was entrusted to Inspector Mohinder Kumar of Police Station SV & ACB Dharamshala, District Kangra. Enquiry revealed that Smt. Uma Azad w/o Sh. Naresh Kumar was posted as Senior Assistant in the examination branch of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hamirpur, who lived with her son Nikhil Azad. Further, Smt. Sunita Devi, i.e. the present petitioner was a candidate in the 3 2026:HHC:23594 recruitment exam of Drawing Master, under Post Code-980, bearing Roll No.980001710. Screening test for the said exam was conducted in various examination centers on 08.10.2022. Analysis of call detail records revealed that Smt Uma Azad, Smt. Sunita Devi and Nikhil Azad were in touch with each other. Petitioner had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from her SBI Account, Main Branch Hamirpur on 03.10.2022 and transferred the same online in the account of Nikhil Azad on 05.10.2022. Inquiry also revealed that undue pecuniary advantage of said description was paid by Smt. Sunita Devi to Smt. Uma Azad & Nikhil and before the conduct of screening test on the date concerned. Smt. Uma Azad in lieu of receipt of the said amount made the question paper available for perusal of the petitioner, i.e. Smt. Sunita Devi before the conduct of exam, as a result whereof, the petitioner Smt. Sunita Devi secured 28th position in over all final merit list of 400 candidates in General Category. 4. To be more precise, Para-12 of the FIR is being quoted in toto hereinbelow:- “12. First Information contents (Attach separate sheet, if necessary) ( प्रथम घूमना तथ्य ( यदि आवश्यक हो, तो अलग पृष्ट नत्थी करे)): It is submitted that consequent upon the registration of a criminal case FIR No. 04/2022 dated 23.12.2022 under section 420, 120-B, 201 IPC & section 7,7A, 8, 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) in respect of the question paper leak of Junior Office Assistant (Information Technology) Post 4 2026:HHC:23594 Code-965 from Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission Hamirpur, malpractices/suspicions have been reported by various source reports in the conduct of a number of examinations held by HPSSC Hamirpur. Thus enquiry No. SIT-5/2023 was ordered into the conduct of Drawing Master Post Code-980 by HPSSC Hamirpur and the same was entrusted to Inspector Mohinder Kumar of Police Station SV & ACB Dharamshala District Kangra. After conclusion of enquiry proceedings, it has been revealed on the basis of enquiry report and enclosed record that Smt. Uma Azad w/o Sh. Naresh Kumar r/o Village Badai P.O. Karot Tehsil Sujanpur District Hamirpur is posted as Senior Assistant in the examination branch of HPSSC Hamirpur who lives with her son named Nikhil Azad at House No.-306 Ward No.-07 Housing Board Colony Hamirpur. It has also been revealed that one lady namely Smt. Sunita Devi dio Sh. Hans Raj resident of Village & Post-Office Nalti Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur(H.P.) was a candidate in the recruitment exam of Drawing Master, Post Code-980 under Roll No. 980001710., Screening test for the said exam was conducted on various exam centers on 08.10.2022. Analysis of call detail records revealed that Smt Uma Azad, Smt. Sunita Devi and Nikhil Azad were in touch with each other before the conduct of screening test of said examination. Smt. Sunita Devi withdrawn an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her SBI Account Main Branch Hamirpur on 03.10.2022 and also transferred Rs. 50,000/- online to Nikhil Azad on 05.10.2022. It has been further transpired that pecuniary undue advantage of above said description was paid by Smt. Sunita Devi to Smt. Uma Azad & Nikhil before the conduct of screening 5 2026:HHC:23594 test on the said date. Smt. Uma Azad in lieu of receiving/obtaining undue advantage of above description, made the question paper of above examination available for reading to Smt. Sunita Devi before the conduct of exam, as a result of which Smt. Sunita Devi was able to secure 28th position in over all final merit list of 400 candidates in General Unreserved Category. Final result of the said examination is yet to be declared. As per the facts revealed on the basis of enquiry report and relevant record, commission of offences punishable under section 420, 120-B IPC & section 7, 7A, 8, 12 Prevention of Corruption Act 1988(as amended in year 2018) have been prima facie disclosed on the part of Smt. Uma Azad, her son Nikhil Azad and Smt. Sunita Devi, above. Hence, a criminal case under section 420, 120-B IPC & section 7, 7A, 8, 12 of PC Act is registered against Smt. Uma Azad, Nikhil Azad and Smt. Sunita Devi above. Copy of FIR is being sent to the competent court and senior officers for information and further necessary action. Relevant entries of FIR are being recorded in the concerned registers.” 5. As a result of the lodging of the said FIR, the result of the petitioner has not been declared and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that though it is a matter of record that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner, but fact of the matter remains that till the petitioner is held guilty by the appropriate Court of law, she has a right to be presumed innocent. He further submitted that the FIR registered 6 2026:HHC:23594 against the petitioner is a false FIR and she is not guilty of the commission of offences alleged against her. He further submitted that the merit obtained by the petitioner in the examination was a result of her own hardwork and therefore, in these circumstances, non declaration of the result by the Authority is totally unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel further argued that in these circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice in case this petition is allowed by issuing a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner and if she is successful on merit, then post be offered to her subject to the final outcome of the investigation. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General and learned Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that in light of the fact that serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner which stand mentioned in the FIR, she is not entitled for any relief, as is being prayed for. Learned Deputy Advocate General referred to Annexure P-5, appended with the petition and submitted that interest of the petitioner has been protected as one post has been kept vacant till the final outcome of investigation/Court case. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents on record. 9. Here, it is not a case that the FIR lodged against the petitioner has got nothing to do with the recruitment process for the post of Drawing Master, i.e. the post for which the petitioner 7 2026:HHC:23594 appeared as a candidate. The allegation against the petitioner is that she made a payment of Rs.50,000/- to the other accused and in lieu of the said payment, the question paper for the post of Drawing Master was made available for her perusal, before she appeared in the written examination. Though, this Court is not making any observation on the issue as to whether the allegation against the petitioner is correct or not, however, this Court has no hesitation in observing that the allegation levelled indeed a grave one. 10. I have carefully perused the contents of the petition and there is no whisper in the petition that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are result of any malafide etc. None has been impleaded as a private respondent in the petition on the allegation of malafides. 11. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view that no direction can be issued to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner and offer her appointment forthwith. In fact, as is evident from Annexure P-5, as one post has been kept vacant till the final outcome of the investigation, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fair call taken by the Authority and of course, the outcome of the investigation will determine the fate of the post that has been kept vacant. 12. Thus, in the peculiar facts of this case, as no mandamus can be issued to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioner qua the post of Drawing Master and offer her appointment 8 2026:HHC:23594 on the strength of her merit at this stage, this petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 16, 2026 (Rishi)