2026:HHC:26623 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3486 of 2019 Decided on: 03.07.2026 ____________________________________________________ Lucky ……….. petitioner Versus State of H.P. and another ……….respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the petitioner : Mr. Vikrant Thakur and Mr. Shubham Singh Guleria, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. : Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Advocate, for respondent No.4. : Mr. Abhinandan Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. ____________________________________________________ Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) In pursuance of the advertisement dated 03.03.2019 (Annexure P-2), posts of Constables had been advertised. In pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable in the month of April, 2019. The petitioner had been allotted Roll No. 0188809. The petitioner had appeared in the written test (objective type test) held on 08.09.2019. 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. On evaluation of the objective test, the petitioner was awarded 47 marks. The petitioner had appeared in the unreserved category. The qualifying marks required for the petitioner in the objective type test were 50 marks. 3. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, by way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to answers to Questions No. 31, 32, 36, 41, 69, 79 and 80 in the objective type test held on 08.09.2019. It is contended by the petitioner that the answers given by the petitioner to the said questions were correct and that he has wrongly been denied marks for the said questions. In order to demonstrate the same, he has placed material on record (Annexure P-6). However, only material with respect to Question No. 31 has been placed on record to demonstrate the correctness of the answer given by the petitioner. 4. In the response filed by the official respondents, i.e. respondents No. 1 to 3, it has been contended that the matter had been got examined by expert question paper setters, who, after considering the contentions of the petitioner, are of the view that the contentions raised by the petitioner qua answers to the questions assailed are not acceptable. 5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 3 6. It is a well-settled position of law that the Court should presume the correctness of the answer key and proceed on that presumption, further, in the event of any doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Sympathy or compassion has no role to play in the case at hand. Besides, the Court should not, in such matters, direct re-evaluation of the answer sheet in this regard. Reference in this regard can be made to judgments of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, and Civil Appeals @ SLP (C) Nos. 21999/2024, 22002/2024 & 1590-1591/2025, titled Shubham Pal and others vs. Staff Selection Commission and another, decided on 03.02.2026. 7. In view thereof, the present writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 3rd July, 2026 tarun