2026:HHC:23035 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 9702 of 2026 Decided on: 18.06.2026 Sharma Meenakshi Satishkumar …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan Advocte General with Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1. : Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, Advocate for respondents No. 2. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, learned Counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, respectively. 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued in the favor of the petitioner and against the respondent directing them to declare the petitioner successful candidate for the post of TGT(Arts) which is advertised vide advertisement no. 01/2025 dated 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23035 27.5.2025 taking the marks obtained in B.Com. 44.89% as 45%, keeping in view the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove and also in the interest of justice and fair play.” 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that in terms of advertisement No. 01 of 2025, dated 27.05.2025, process was initiated for filling up of vacant posts by the Rajya Chayan Aayog, Hamirpur, including 17 posts reserved for Scheduled Tribe (unreserved). According to the petitioner, minimum essential qualification for the post inter alia was B.Com degree with at least 50% marks with relaxation up to 5% in the minimum educational qualification to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, including the Scheduled Tribe category. According to the petitioner, on the strength of merit obtained by her in the recruitment process, she was called for verification of documents but thereafter, her name was not included in the final merit list. On inquiry, it was revealed that her name was not included in the final merit list on the ground that she did not have 45% marks at the Graduation level. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had secured 44.89 % marks in Graduation as is clear from her B.Com. Degree, which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. He submitted that as per the Annexure P-1, 0.5 and above mark will be considered equal to 1 mark. He submitted that in light of this fact, as the petitioner had secured 44.89% marks and as 0.5 or more mark is to be treated as 1 mark, 44.89% marks obtained by the 3 2026:HHC:23035 petitioner were to be treated equal to 45%. He submitted that as the respondents have erred in not giving benefit of this clause to the petitioner, therefore, the act of the respondents of not including the name of the petitioner in the final merit list is bad in law. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as also learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 have submitted by way of assistance that present petition is not maintainable at all. They submitted that the present petition is completely mis-conceived and is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself. Learned Advocate General argued that in the present case, in order to be eligible for the purpose of participating in the process, a candidate was to have 50% marks at the Graduation or Post Graduation level as the case may be and 5% benefit was to be given to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, including the Scheduled Tribe category. He submitted that though as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and was making her claim for appointment on the strength of B. Com. Degree, therefore, to make herself eligible, she was to have a degree of Graduation with at least 45% marks. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had 44.89 % marks and in the absence of there being any condition either in the advertisement or the Recruitment and Promotion Rules that in such an eventuality, 0.5% or above mark was to be considered equal to 1 mark, the petitioner was not entitled to any relief as prayed for. 6. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has relied upon 4 2026:HHC:23035 the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Orissa Public Service Commission and another vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another, (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 198 and submitted that in similar circumstances, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that when emphasis is given in the rules to the minimum marks obtained, making it clear that at least minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate, there cannot be any question of giving relaxation or rounding off the marks obtained by such candidate. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 further submitted that the eligibility criteria, as is contained in the advertisement, is akin to the Recruitment and Promotion Rules and as there is no provision of any relaxation either in the advertisement or in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, therefore, also, the prayer of the petitioner is mis-conceived. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General as also learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 8. It is not in dispute that in terms of the advertisement, a general category candidate was required to have a minimum of 50% marks at the Graduation/Post Graduation level, on the strength whereof, the petitioner was participating in the process and relaxation of 5% was contemplated in eligibility/qualification/marks to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/OBC candidates. As a result of 5 2026:HHC:23035 this relaxation of 5%, minimum 50% marks stood reduced to 45% as far as the candidates belonging to reserved categories are concerned. However, in the present case, despite this relaxation, the petitioner was not crossing the hurdle of having minimum marks of 45% in Graduation. She was having only 44.89% marks. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any condition in the advertisement or the Recruitment and Promotion Rules that in such a situation, there was a provision of rounding off 0.5 % marks to 1%. 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Orissa Public Service Commission and another vs. Rupashree Chowdhary and another, (2011) 8 Supreme Court Cases 198, has been pleased to hold as under:- “10. A bare reading of the aforesaid Rule would make it crystal clear that in order to qualify in the written examination a candidate has to obtain a minimum of 33% marks in each of the papers and not less than 45% of marks in the aggregate in all the written papers in the main examination. When emphasis is given in the Rule itself to the minimum marks to be obtained making it clear that at least the said minimum marks have to be obtained by the candidate concerned there cannot be a question of relaxation or rounding off. There is no power provided in the statute/Rules permitting any such rounding off or giving grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to the relaxation was permissible. The Rules are statutory in nature and no 6 2026:HHC:23035 dilution or amendment to such Rules is permissible or possible by adding some words to the said statutory rules for giving the benefit of rounding off or relaxation 11. We may also draw support in this connection from a decision of this Court in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devis. In the said judgment this Court has laid down that: (SCC p. 658, para 6) "6.... when an advertisement mentions a particular qualification and an appointment is made in disregard of the same, [then] it is not a matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement." 12. The entire record of the main written examination was also produced before us which indicates that there are also candidates who have got more marks than the respondent in the aggregate but have not been able to get 33% marks in each paper and have missed it only by a whisker. In case the contention of the counsel appearing for the respondent is accepted then those candidates who could not get 33% marks in each paper in the main written examination could and should have also been called for viva voce examination, 7 2026:HHC:23035 which would amount to a very strange and complicated situation and also would lead to the violation of the sanctity of statutory provision. 13. When the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous i.e. they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences, for the Act speaks for itself. There is no ambiguity in the language of Rule 24 leading to two conclusions and allowing an interpretation in favour of the respondent which would be different to what was intended by the statute. Therefore, no rounding off of the aggregate marks is permitted in view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 24 of the Rules under consideration.” 10. Thus, a perusal of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court makes it clear that when there is a condition contained qua the minimum qualifying marks, then possession of minimum qualifying marks is sine quo non for the purpose of eligibility and in the absence of there being any bar provided in the Statute/Rules, permitting either rounding off or grant of grace marks so as to bring up a candidate to meet the minimum requirement is not allowed. Herein in the absence of there being any provision of rounding off or grant of grace marks, the Authority rightly refused to treat 44.89% marks equal to 45% marks. Thus, as indeed, the petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum eligibility criteria to participate in the 8 2026:HHC:23035 recruitment process, she was indeed disqualified from participating in the same. Simply because she was allowed to participate in the process for any reason, no unfettered right stands vested upon her to be included in the final merit list. The authority rightly had not included her name in the final merit list as the petitioner was not eligible to have had participated in the process. Reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioner on Annexure P-11 is misleading and misconceived. Annexure P-11 are extracts of Prospectus of a college and H.P. University. Relaxation mentioned therein is for the purpose of admission. Same cannot be confused with relaxation, if any, in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. Accordingly, in view of above discussion, as this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge June 18, 2026 (narender)