2026:HHC:26161 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 6321 of 2022 Decided on: 02.07.2026 Ms. Priyanka Rani …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Ravinder Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Harshita Dogra, Advocate for respondent No. 1. : Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Advocate for respondent No. 2. : M/s Shagun Sharma and Rahul Anand Kapoor, Advocates for respondents No. 3 to 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “i) That writ in the nature of certiorari may very kindly be issued and impugned final result Annexure P-8, impugned waiting list Annexure P-9 and impugned selection notification Annexure P-10 may very kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner and respondent authorities may very kindly be directed to declare the result of the petitioner 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:26161 under general EWS category. ii. That respondents may very kindly be directed to re- draw selection merit list (Annexure P-10) of general EWS Sub category by considering the petitioner as general EWS candidate and appoint her under such category with all consequential benefits of seniority, arrear of pay etc. iii. That the appointment of private respondents may very kindly be quashed and set aside being lower in merit under general EWS category than to the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement dated 21st September, 2020, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. In terms of this advertisement, various posts were advertised, including 90 posts of Junior Draughtsman (Civil/Electrical) in the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited, Shimla. The opening date for submission of online recruitment applications was 26.09.2020 and last date for the same was 25th October, 2020. Out of 7 advertised posts of Junior Draughtsman (Civil), four posts were for general unreserved category, one post was reserved for EWS/BPL category, one post for Scheduled caste unreserved and one post for OBC unreserved. Similarly, out of 83 posts of Junior Draughtsman (Electrical), 11 posts were reserved for EWS category. Besides other reservations, certain posts were for general category also. 3 2026:HHC:26161 3. According to the petitioner, she being eligible to apply for the post in question, submitted her form in terms of Annexure P- 3, but on account of a technical problem, she was not able to upload the sub-category of EWS/BPL. Accordingly, in terms of Annexure P- 5, which is communication dated 26.10.2020, she brought this fact into the notice of the respondent/Commission, but in the process that was undertaken by the Commission, she was made to participate as a General category candidate. The petitioner has appended with the petition as Annexure P-6, the Admit Card which was issued to her to participate in the process of written objective test which was scheduled for 25.07.2021. It is further the case of the petitioner that in terms of Annexure P-8, result stood declared and thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-9, a waiting list was also published, in which, name of the petitioner was in the unreserved category. Thereafter, in terms of Annexure P-10, the final result was declared and as the petitioner was not selected, she has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had secured 46.81 marks in the recruitment process yet the candidates selected under the EWS category, i.e., the private respondents, were offered appointment despite the fact that they had secured less marks than the petitioner. Learned Counsel further argued that as in the present case, the petitioner was belonging to 4 2026:HHC:26161 the EWS category and it was only on account of a technical glitch that she could not mention so in the online application form, which was uploaded by her, the act of the respondents of not considering her as an EWS category candidate is not sustainable in law. 5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent- Commission and learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board submitted that the contention of the petitioner that on account of some technical problem she could not upload her status as an EWS category candidate while uploading her form online, cannot be accepted. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Board referred to Annexure P-3, which is the document uploaded by the petitioner and submitted that perusal of the said document demonstrates that it was uploaded completely filled, and nothing was missing in the said document. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that despite the fact that in terms of Annexure P-2, online recruitment application could have been submitted w.e.f. 26.09.2020 up to 25.10.2026, the petitioner chose the last date to upload the document and in said document, petitioner had categorically mentioned her category as ‘General’ and sub-category as ‘unreserved’. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the contention of the petitioner that there was some technical glitch is a concocted story for the reason that Annexure P- 3 on the face of it, demonstrates that it is a completely filled document and there is nothing remiss in any of the columns so as to 5 2026:HHC:26161 justify the alleged technical glitch in the system. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Commission, in addition, submitted that in the advertisement, it was categorically mentioned that category once claimed, will not be allowed to be changed at any stage and the request of the petitioner which was made after declaration of the result on 22.06.2022, vide application dated 01.08.2022 that her category be changed to General (UR) to General (BPL), was rejected in the light of said condition. Learned Counsel also submitted that no representation in terms of Annexure P-5 was received by the Commission, as is alleged in the petition. 7. In rebuttal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the averments made in the rejoinder, submitted that Annexure P-11 form was filled by the petitioner on the asking of the Commission itself, yet she was not considered under the EWS/BPL category. He also submitted that Representation Annexure P-5 was personally submitted in the commission by the petitioner at Hamirpur. He also submitted that delay in uploading the form was due to CORONA pandemic. 8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 9. The issue before this Court is not whether the petitioner actually belongs to the EWS/BPL category or not. The issue before 6 2026:HHC:26161 this Court is as to whether there is any merit in the contention of the petitioner that it was on account of a technical issue, that when she submitted her form for being considered against the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil), she could not upload her status of being an EWS candidate. 10. The post in issue was advertised vide Annexure P-2, on 21.09.2020. In terms of this advertisement, the opening date for submission of online recruitment applications was 26.09.2026 and closing date was 25.10.2026. This means that a window of one month was given to the candidates by the Commission to upload the forms. 11. The petitioner in the present case applied for the post of Junior Draughtsman in terms application form Annexure P-3. 12. A perusal of this Annexure demonstrates that the petitioner had applied for the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil/Electrical) (838). Her application number was 3377883, District of examination centre was Shimla, Category was ‘General- (1)’, gender was female and sub-category was ‘Unreserved’. Now one thing which is evident from the perusal of the application form is that against the columns which were to be filled in by the applicant, all the columns have been duly filled and the filled in components of the form are in “bold”. Not even a single component which was to be filled in by the applicant is unfilled in the form. Therefore, it is not 7 2026:HHC:26161 understood as to what was the technical glitch, which the petitioner is complaining of in this case. 13. Had there been a technical glitch, then the same would have resulted in the petitioner not being in a position to fill up certain columns of the application. 14. Further had there indeed been a technical glitch, then it would have not only affected the petitioner but other candidates too who while uploading the form would have faced the same issue. But there is nothing on record to demonstrate that there was any complaint filed by any other candidate qua facing of any difficulty in filling up the online application form. 15. Be that as it may, coming to the facts of this case, the allegation of the petitioner in terms of para-3 of the rejoinder is that while filling up sub-category of EWS/BPL, due to some technical glitch, the same was not “uploaded/editing”, therefore, in the application submitted by the petitioner, she reflected her sub- category as ‘Unreserved’. This contention raised in para-3 of the rejoinder is difficult to believe. At the end of the day, be it filling up category of ‘EWS’ or ‘BPL’ or mentioning the sub-category ‘Unreserved’, these are all alphabets of English and if the online system was accepting the one word ‘Unreserved’, then it is not understood as to why it would have rejected other alphabets of English like EWS/BPL. Incidentally, few letters of the word 8 2026:HHC:26161 ‘Unreserved’ are there also in EWS also like ‘E’ and ‘S’. A perusal of Annexure P-3 even with naked eyes demonstrates that whatever was filled therein by the candidate was duly reflected in the columns thereof. 16. May be by mistake or oversight, the petitioner against the heading of sub-category failed to mention/write down EWS/BPL and typed ‘Unreserved’ but then this mistake on the part of the petitioner or oversight at her end, cannot be attributed to the system by claiming it to be a technical issue. 17. This Court again reiterates that had there been a technical issue that either the ‘Software’ was not uploading the words ‘EWS/BPL’, then it is not as if the petitioner was the sole candidate amongst thousands who applied for the posts in issue who belonged to this particular category and this kind of complaint would have been raised by other candidates also who belonged to the said categories. This all demonstrates that what is mentioned in the petition is nothing but a concocted story by the petitioner to hide/conceal the mistake which she committed while filling up the online application form. 18. Now as far as her contention that on 26.10.2020, she wrote to the commission for treating her as a EWS/BPL category candidate is concerned, it is the categorical stand of the Commission in its reply that it did not receive the said communication. On a 9 2026:HHC:26161 query that was raised to learned Counsel for the petitioner as to what took the petitioner a month to upload the application form, learned counsel submitted that it was on account of the CORONA pandemic that she could not upload her form. Thereafter, on a query again put to learned Counsel as to how Annexure P-5 was submitted by the petitioner to the commission, he informed that petitioner had personally visited Hamirpur to do the needful. Now it is very strange that on one hand, there was CORONA pandemic which prevented the petitioner from uploading an application form on the computer for almost a month as from the date when the system was opened for accepting the applications, but when it came to filing of an alleged representation before the Commission for treating her as an EWS/BPL category candidate, all of a sudden there was no CORONA pandemic and the petitioner was able to travel from Theog to Hamirpur to submit her representation on the very next date. This again appears to be a concocted story as is evident from the fact that there is no receipt etc. with Annexure P-5 nor is there any diary number to suggest that indeed Annexure P-5 was ever submitted by the petitioner with the Commission, receipt whereof is otherwise categorically denied by the respondent-Commission in its reply filed to the writ petition. 19. Therefore, the above facts clearly demonstrate that here is a case wherein the petitioner either because of her own mistake or 10 2026:HHC:26161 on account of some oversight failed to reflect her category/sub- category of belonging to EWS/BPL while she was filling up the application form but later on, when she realized her mistake, she has come to the Court by way of this petition by putting forth a concocted version, which is not substantiated by any iota of evidence. 20. Had it been a case that the petitioner had applied under the EWS or BPL category and her case was not being considered by the Commission under said category or had been rejected by the Commission on the ground that the petitioner had not produced or uploaded the relevant certificates etc., then the things would have been different. Such a situation is squarely covered in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Charles K. Skaria and others vs. Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cases 752, as again reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman Jee and others (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779. However, herein it is a case where the petitioner did not apply at all under the EWS/BPL category but subsequently is raking up an issue that she has been wrongly rejected for appointment against the post in issue under the said category by claiming that she could not mention her status of EWS/BPL in the online form due to a technical issue. In light of the fact that the petitioner had never applied under the EWS/BPL 11 2026:HHC:26161 category, the respondents were not under any obligation to consider her under said category because a candidate obviously has to be considered by the Commission against the category under which he/she had applied. Therefore, in light 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) Judge July 02, 2026 (narender)