IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.11518 of 2026 Decided on 14th July 2026 Arun …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shubham Guleria, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Shubham Guleria, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3, respectively. On instruction of Mr. Shubham Guleria, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned Senior Counsel has also appeared on behalf of respondent No.3. 2 2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- i. “Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 29.05.2026 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in LPA No. 506 of 2024 and 34 of 2025 qua the petitioner also. ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to revise the merit list and selection list relating to Himachal Pradesh Administrative and Allied Services Examination, 2013 in accordance with the findings recorded by the Hon'ble Division Bench and to extend benefit of revised merit list to the petitioner also. iii. Direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the revised merit/select list and determine his entitlement to selection and appointment; iv. Direct the respondents to grant appointment to the appropriate service/post together with all consequential benefits including continuity of service, seniority, notional pay fixation, increments, promotion-related benefits and all other service benefits to the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in light of the adjudication made by the Hon’ble Division Bench in LPA No. 506 of 2024, titled Mohit Gupta versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters, decided on 29.05.2026, the respondents be directed to extend the benefit of the said judgment to the petitioner also by revising the merit and selection list relating to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative and Allied Services Examination, 2013. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was called upon by the Court to take the Court through the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench and to further the cause of the petitioners, he submitted that in light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench, as now the merit list has to be revised, therefore, the respondents be directed to give the benefit of the said judgment to the petitioner or, in the alternative, to decide the representation of the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission, on instructions, states that the present petition is completely misconceived. By referring to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in general, particularly paras 25 and 26 thereof, he submitted that the Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to confine the relief to the parties before it and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. He further submits that in case any indulgence is shown to the petitioner at this stage, it will open a Pandora’s Box with respect to an issue relating to an examination conducted in the year 2014. 4 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Senior Counsel for the Public Service Commission. I have also carefully gone through the documents appended with the petition, including the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as also by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 8. A perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge demonstrates that the petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the grounds that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process, could not have challenged the same and further in terms of the Rules, the merit of the main examination as well as viva voce only was to be taken into consideration while preparing the final list and the marks obtained in the preliminary examination were to be excluded. 9. The issue before the learned Single Judge was as to whether the candidates who had participated in the recruitment process under the reserved category and had taken the benefit of the relaxed standards therein to pass the preliminary examination could subsequently stake claim for general category seats on overall merit or not. 5 10. The Hon’ble Division Bench, while setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and held that the candidates belonging to reserved category who had qualified the preliminary examination availing relaxed standards were not entitled to migrate to the unreserved category vacancies. 11. After holding so on merit, the Hon’ble Division Bench was thereafter pleased to hold as under:- “In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the candidates belonging to reserved category, who had qualified the Preliminary Examination availing ‘‘relaxed standard’’, were not entitled to be migrated to the unreserved vacancies. We, however, also take notice of the fact that the reserved category candidates who had taken benefit of the’‘relaxed standard’’ and were migrated to the unreserved category have been working for more than a decade. The reserved category candidates who were appointed on migration against unreserved vacancies are not at fault in any manner. Hence, we are of the opinion that reserved category candidates who have been so migrated in reserved vacancies and appointed, should not be displaced and allowed to continue in respective posts. On the other hand, the unreserved candidates who could not be appointed due to the above illegal migration are also entitled for appointment as per their merit. The equities have to be adjusted by this Court. (See Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352 para 49, wherein candidates were not disturbed as they had been working for the last five years). In Mohit Gupta CWPOA No. 5329 of 2019, the petitioner therein i.e. appellant in LPA No. 506 of 2024 has not given any details of marks he obtained in the 6 main examination as well as the viva voce. Conspicuous by absence in the original application filed by Mohit Gupta is the fact as to how the said individual has been affected due to placing of respondents No. 6 to 10 against the unreserved seats.Would Mohit Gupta figure in the final select list, if respondents No. 6 to 10 are excluded from the said list needs to be examined by respondent No. 5 (HPPSC). On such examination benefit, if any, accrues in favour of Mohit Gupta needs to be extended to the said individual within two months of the passing of the judgment. However, in the case of Ms. Pratibha Chauhan CWPOA No. 4268 of 2016, from the final merit list (Annexure A-3) thereof, it is evident that the two individuals, Mr. Pankaj Sharma and Mr. Chet Singh, have been placed at serial No. 1 & 2 of the final merit list and Ms. Pratibha Chauhan has been placed at serial No. 11 of the final merit list. She has been selected in the HPS. In the OA filed by the said Ms. Pratibha Chauhan, only the aforesaid two individuals have been made parties. In the aforesaid backdrop, benefit, if any, which would accrue to Ms. Pratibha Chauhan on account of Mr. Pankaj Sharma and Mr. Chet Singh being considered against reserved category needs to be considered by respondent No. 5 (HPPSC) and if on such consideration there is an improvement in the merit ranking of Ms. Pratibha Chauhan which would help her being considered for the post of HAS benefit thereof be given within two months of the passing of the judgment.” 12. Thus, it is evident from the judgment that the Hon’ble Division Bench was alive to the situation that as its adjudication might open up a Pandora's Box, it restricted the reliefs to the petitioners/appellants before it. 7 13. In the light of this fact, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable. Nothing prevented the petitioner from approaching the Court, either by way of independent writ petitions when the cause of action accrued or becoming a party either at the stage of the pendency of the writ petitions or appeal in the litigation which resulted in the judgment having been passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 14. However, the petitioner chose not to approach the Court. He remained a mute spectator and now after the Hon’ble Division Bench has pronounced the judgment on 29.05.2026, he is before this Court seeking a mandamus that the benefit of the judgment be given to him also or in the alternative his representation be decided. 15. In light of the conduct of the petitioner and, moreover, the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Division Bench, no relief as is being prayed for by the petitioner can be granted to him. 8 16. As the Hon’be Division Bench itself was pleased to confine the benefit of the judgment to the petitioners/appellants before it, this Court cannot overreach the said findings returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench and pass a mandamus by overreaching to the findings returned by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 17. Further, as far as the prayer of the petitioner to direct the respondents to decide his representation is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the filing of the representation or advising the petitioner to file such a representation is nothing but a mischief. When the Hon’ble Division Bench itself has been pleased to confine the benefit of the judgment to the parties before it, what cannot be done directly cannot be allowed to be done indirectly. Therefore, no mandamus can be issued to the Public Service Commission also to decide the representation, because, as has been observed hereinabove, the petitioner is belatedly approaching the Court and the Authorities and cannot be granted any relief in light of the pronouncement in the judgment by the Hon’ble Division Bench. 9 18. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. It is further observed that the Public Service Commission shall not pass any order upon the representation of the petitioner. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 14, 2026 (Vinod)