( 2026:HHC:23649 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 4028 of 2015 Decided on: 19.06.2026 _____________________________________________________________ Sunny Sharma .....Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. I. N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, with Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 3-State. Ms. Archana Dutt and Ms. Ranjana Pathania, Advocates, for respondent No.2. Ranjan Sharma, Judge Sunny Sharma, being the petitioner, had filed the instant petition, praying for the following relief:- “I. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Final Answer Key Annexure P-8 and resultantly quashing the Merit List/Selection List; II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-prepare the Final Answer Key in accordance with the submissions made in para no.9 of the writ petition; 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) III. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to award marks to the petitioner in accordance with the new Final Answer Key; & IV. Issue a writ of mandamus to prepare fresh merit list in accordance with the new Final Answer Key and offer appointment to the petitioner accordingly.” FACTUAL MATRIX: 2. Case as set up by Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Respondent No. 2- Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board issued an advertisement on 20.05.2013 inviting applications for filling up 186 posts of Shastri in the Elementary Education Department [Annexure P-1]. It is averred that the screening test consisted of 200 marks for 200 questions, which carried one mark each question and 30 marks for Interview as mentioned in Para 5 of the Advertisement issued by Respondent No. 2-Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board on 06.07.2014 and the result thereof was declared on 28.08.2014, in which the petitioner [Sunny Sharma] was declared qualified. It is further averred that, on the basis of the screening test, the petitioner was called for an interview, which was conducted between 19.09.2014 and 21.10.2014. The final result was declared 3 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) on 28.11.2014 [Annexure P-3], wherein the petitioner secured 183 marks and was not selected for the post of Shastri, as the cut-off merit in the General Category closed at 185 marks. 2(i). It is averred by the petitioner that screening test was conducted on 06.07.2014 and the Respondent No 2-Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board uploaded the Provisional Answer Key inviting objections from candidates within the stipulated period of seven days. The case of petitioner is that though he had submitted objections to as detailed in Para 9(a) to 9(g) of writ petition, but the same were not considered by Respondent No 2-Subordinate Services Selection Board in true perspective and had the said objections, been rightly considered, then, he would have been selected but the action of awarding the lower marks in screening test has led to his non- selection. In this background, the instant petition has been filed with the prayer that the non-selection of petitioner to the post of Shastri by Respondent No. 2- Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection 4 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) Board, by ignoring the objections submitted by him to Provisional Answer Key and even the answers in Final Answer Key were incorrect; and therefore, the decision-making process was vitiated and his non-selection is liable to be interfered with by this Court. STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.2-BOARD IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT: 3. Pursuant to the issuance of notice, the Respondent No 2- Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board has filed a Reply-Affidavit dated 15.10.2015 of Secretary of Subordinate Services Selection Board. 3(i). Para No. 4 of the Reply-Affidavit indicates that objections to the Provisional Answer Key were received from several candidates and the objections submitted by the candidates were examined/vetted by the panel of experts and the Revised-Final Answer Key(s) were uploaded by Respondent No. 2-Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Services Selection Board in accordance with the recommendations of the expert panel. 3(ii). It is averred in the Reply-Affidavit that 5 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) the evaluation of the answer sheets of all candidates who appeared in the screening test was carried out in accordance with the duly vetted Final Answer Key, without any prejudice to any candidate by applying same criteria uniformly to all. It is in this backdrop Respondent No.2-Board has opposed the petition with the prayer to dismiss the same. 4. Heard, Mr. Varun Rana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. I. N. Mehta, Learned Senior Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Pawan Kumar Nadda, Learned Additional Advocate General, for Respondents No.1 and 3-State; and Ms. Archana Dutt & Ms.Ranjana Pathania, Learned Counsel for RespondentNo2-Board. ANALYSIS: 5. Taking into account the entirety of the facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner seeking quashing of Final Answer Key [Annexure P-8] and for quashing the resultant Final Merit list [Annexure P-3] for the post of Shastri and the claim for directing the Respondent No 2-Board 6 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) to issue the Revised Final Answer Key and then to issue the Revised Merit List, by awarding marks to the petitioner for questions mentioned in Para 9 (a) to (g) and then to appoint the petitioner, is devoid of merit, for the following reasons:- 5(i). Material on record indicates that the Recruiting Agency issued an advertisement for filling up 186 posts ofShastri through advertisement No 25/2013 on 20.05.2013 [Annexure P-1]. Indisputably, Respondent No. 2-Board conducted written screening test for the post of Shastri on 09.02.2014, but due to intervention of this Court,a fresh written / screening test was held for the post of Shastri on 6.7.2014. Material on record and the admitted facts in Para 5 of the Advertisement dated 20.05.2013 [Annexure P-1], the mode of selection for the post of Shastri [Post Code No. 361] reveals that selection was to be held on the basis of the objective type screening test consisting of 200 marks followed by interview consisting of 30 marks. It is averred that he appeared in the screening test vide Roll No. 264738 and was made to appear in screening test 7 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) with “B” Series question paper. Even a perusal of Annexure P-2 i.e. Question Booklet indicates that it consisted of 200 questions, carrying one mark each. In this backdrop, the grievance of the petitioner is that the answer to question no. 20, 76, 104, 62, 72, 74 and 186 in “B” Series booklet in the Final Answer Key, with respect to the aforesaid seven questions were incorrect, for which the petitioner was entitled for award of marks by the Respondent- Board and due to Incorrect Answers reflected in Final Answer Key, the merit of petitioner was lowered down. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO PROVISIONAL ANSWER KEY DISENTITLES PETITIONER FOR LAYING CHALLENGE TO FINAL ANSWER KEY: 5(ii). Material on record indicates that Screening test for the post of Shastri was conducted on 06.07.2014. Thereafter the Provisional Answer Key was uploaded on the web page inviting objections to the same within 07 days. Perusal of Annexure P-5 dated 02.02.2015, reveals that the objections to Provisional Answer Key were submitted by petitioner in January 2015 belatedly and therefore, no action was taken 8 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) on the objections submitted by the petitioner. Similar stand has been taken in Para 7 of the Reply-Affidavit and the Respondent-Board that the objections were submitted by the petitioner belatedly, i.e. beyond the time limit of 07 days. In these circumstances, once the petitioner had slept over the matter and had not submitted the objections to Provisional Answer Key within the stipulated period of 07 days but had submitted the same belatedly in January, 2015; therefore, the inaction/omissions of the petitioner, disentitles him to turn around and to seek leverage for his own inactions or omissions, is impermissible. CHALLENGE TO PROVISIONAL AND FINAL ANSWER KEY UNTENABLE: 5(iii). In response to the plea of the petitioner, the State Authorities have file Reply-Affidavit, to Para No.9 (a) to (g)of the Reply-Affidavit, reads as under:- a. That the objections were received from the candidates on the answer of this question No. 20 of the question booklet of series B of the provisional answer key which was B. The objections were examined by the panel of experts and 9 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) the same are revised from B to A. b. That the objections were also received from the candidates on the answer of this question No. 76 of the question booklet of Series B of the provisional answer key which was “C”. The objections were examined by the panel of experts and the same was revised from C to A. c. That the objections were also received from the candidates on the answer of this question No. 104 of the question booklet of series B of the provisional answer key which was D. The objection were examined by the panel of experts and the same was revised from D to C. d. That the objections were also received from the candidates on the answer of this question No. 62 of the question booklet of series B of the provisional answer key which was C. The objections were examined by the panel of experts and the same was revised from C to B & C [as both the options were correct. Hence, it is wrong on part of the petitioner to say that the correct answer of this question is option C 10 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) only. e to g. That the objections were also received from the candidates on the answer of question No. 72, 74, and 186 of the question booklet of series B of the provisional answer key which was B, C & D respectively. In this regard, it is submitted that if it comes to the notice of the experts that the answer of any question of the provisional answer key is out rightly wrong or the question itself is totally wrong, the question is deleted and the grace marks are award to all the candidates. It applies not only to a particular exam for a post but to all exams. Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit as reproduced above reveals that in Booklet Series “B” petitioner had attempted Question No. 20 with Option-B whereas in Final Answer Key, the panel of experts had shown thatthe correct answer was Option-A, which nullifies the the claim of the petitioner. Likewise, respect to Question No. 76 though the petitioner had attempted option C but in the same sequence while issuing Final Answer Key the panel of experts have held the 11 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) correct answer to be Answer-A, which negates the claim of the petitioner. So far as Question No. 104 is concerned, though the petitioner had attempted option D but while issuing Final Answer Key, the panel of experts had treated the correct answer to be Answer C and therefore, was not entitled for any marks for this also. With reference to Question No. 62 though the petitioner had attempted option C but as per panel of experts, while issuing Final Answer Key, both options B and C were found to be correct and as per Para 10(e) of Reply-Affidavit, the Respondent-Board has awarded marks for option C to the petitioner and therefore, the contention that marks were not awarded for Question No. 62 is misleading and false. Lastly, so far as Questions No. 72, 74 and 186 are concerned, the panel of experts have held that these three questions were totally wrong and these questions were deleted for which grace marks were awarded to all candidates including the petitioner. With reference to the above facts, petitioner has chosen not to file any rejoinder to assert his 12 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) claim that non-award of marks, if any, was vitiated by perversity, illegality or arbitrariness. Having chosen not to file a rejoinder, to the stand taken in the Reply-Affidavit, the claim of the petitioner is negated, leading to the logical conclusion that the petitioner was satisfied with the Reply-Affidavit. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any valid legal and plausible reason to accept the claim of the petitioner to direct the respondent to reissue the Final Answer Key and to revise the merit list for the post of Shastri. PETITIONER ALREADY GIVEN GRACE MARKS: 5(iv). Admitted case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had secured 183 marks [156 marks out of 200 in screening test and 27 out of 30 marks in interview as per Sr. No. 79 at page 30 of the Final Merit List, Annexure P-3], whereas the cut-off for the general category stopped at 185 marks. Based on the averments made in Para 9 of the Reply-Affidavit, once the petitioner is not entitled to any additional marks for Questions No. 20,76and 104, whereas infact the petitioner has already been awarded grace marks 13 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) for Questions No.62, 72, 74 and 186 as given to other candidates then, the claim of the petitioner for not awarding marks to him is misleading and without any basis. PETITIONER ALREADY GIVEN MARK FOR THIS QUESTION: 5(v). Even for Question No. 62,as per Para 9 and Para 10[E] of Reply Affidavit, though the petitioner was awarded marks for this answer but assuming, even if no marks were awarded for Question No. 62, and even if, one mark is added to present total of 183 marks, then also the petitioner reaches 184 marks, which is still below the cut-off, which stopped at 185 marks, for the general category. In these circumstances, the claim of the petitioner is devoid of any merit. MORE THAN TWO ANSWERS CREATING DOUBT DISENTITLES PETITIONER FOR MARKS: 5(vi). Plea of the petitioner that the action of the Respondent-Board in not awarding marks for Question No. 20, 76 and 104 and the Answers for Series “B” in the Final Answer Key is contrary to the material on record in view of Annexure P-9 to P-11. 14 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) The above plea is untenable, for the reason that once the panel of experts have arrived at a conclusion that for Question No. 20, the correct answer was option “A” and for Question No. 76 the correct option was “A” and for Question No. 104 the correct option was “C” but even if the material Annexure P-9, P-10 and P-11 raises a doubt about the Answers reflected in the Final Answer Key, then, also in such a situation and in the event of doubt, benefit should go the Examination Authority rather than to the candidate, as this court presumes the correctness of the Final Answer Key as notified by the expert body. 5(vi-a). 5(vi-a). Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors Versus State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, has mandated that in the event of doubt in answers(when two or more answer were inferable} as reflected in the Answer Keys vis-à-vis the material furnished by way of the objection-representation, the benefit should go to the Examination Authority who has the expertise in the matter and in such eventualities, sympathy or 15 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) compassion have no role to play, in the following terms:- “30 (v). In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” 5(vi-b). In view of mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shubham Pal & Ors versus Staff Selection Commission & Anr, arising out of SLP(C) No. 21999 of 2024,once the experts have issued Final Answer Key after considering objections then, the sympathy or compassion have no role in such cases, in the following terms:- “12. Having given our thoughtful consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the view that we should not interfere in the matter. As held by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh &Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this Court also said that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. In these types of cases sympathy or compassion have no role to play. Courts should be very loath in matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet.” NON-SELECTION BY DULY CONSTITUTED SELECTED COMMITTEE VALID: 16 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) 5(vii). Challenge made by the petitioner to the Final Answer Key and the Resultant Merit List/Select List cannot be permitted to sustain, for the reason, that once the Respondent-Board has conducted the selection forthe post of Shastri in accordance with its norms and procedure governing selection as contained in the advertisement and the Rules of Procedure and in absence of any arbitrariness, illegality or malafidies having been asserted and established by the petitioner the selection made by the Recruiting Agency cannot be interfered with in a casual manner on the basis of mere bald allegations which are found to be not tenable in view of above discussion. In view of the mandateof Law passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke and others versus Dr. B. S. Mahajan and others (1990) 1 CC 305, in the following terms: - 9. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the Court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the Candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee 17 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) which has the expertise on the subject. The Court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the Constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved malafides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the Court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction. 5(viii). Moreover, absence of malafides cannot be tested without having impleaded the persons against whom such malafides are alleged/asserted. None of the members of Selection Committee have been impleaded ininstant proceedings. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmityin the action of the Respondent-Board in issuing Final Answer Key and in issuing the resultant merit list and in recommending the names of other candidates for appointment. 18 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) CHALLENGE TO SELECTION AFTER PARTICIPATION NOT TENABLE: 5(ix). Petitioner having participated in selection process and has limited right of consideration. Petitioner has no legal or vested right of automatic appointment having participated in the selection process as per the criteria, norms and procedure and lower overall merit of the petitioner of 183 marks vis-à-vis the cut of marks for general category which stopped at 185 marks disentitles the petitioner for seeking indulgence of this Court on bald allegations, without there being any cogent and convincing proof to establish his case and therefore, the claim and contentions raised are devoid of any merit. 5(x). Learned Counsel submit that after his non- selection in pursuance to the advertisement dated 20.05.2013 [Annexure P-1] and the Final Result dated 28.11.2014 [Annexure P-3], the petitioner has been selected as Shastri in subsequent selection. 5(xi). Claim of petitioner for seeking a direction to quash the Final Answer Key and the Final Merit List [Annexure P-3] with the prayer for seeking the directions to recast the Final Answer Key and the 19 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) Final Merit List cannot sustain as behind the back of persons who stood appointed in said selection. Claim for revising the merit list in absence of selected and recommended candidates in itself, is a ground for not exceeding to the claim of the petitioner, as non-joinder of necessary parties dis-entitles him, for relief as no adversial order can be passed behind the back of such persons who are likely to be affected in instant case. Non impleading of successful candidates disentitles the petitioner for relief in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anupal Singh and others versus State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Personnel Department and others, (2020) 2 SCC 173. 6. No other point was argued/raised. DIRECTIONS: 7. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is dismissed, in following terms:- (i). Final Answer Key [Annexure P-8] for the post of Shastri [Post Code No. 361] is upheld; (ii). Final Merit List-Result dated 28.11.2014 20 ( 2026:HHC:23649 ) [Annexure P-3] is upheld; (iii). Claim of the petitioner for revisiting the Final AnswerKey and Final Merit List is turned down; (iv). Non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Shastridue to lower overall merit does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or arbitrariness; (v). Parties to bear respective costs. 8. In aforesaid terms, the writ petition and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of. (Ranjan Sharma) Judge June 19, 2026 (Shamsh Tabrez)