( 2026:HHC:31303 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.1325 of 2018. Decided on :29 th July , 2026. Sumit Kumar ...Petitioner. Versus Central University of H.P. ....Respondent. ] Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral). By way of present petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “1) That the respondent may kindly be directed to appoint the present petitioner to the post of Upper Division Clerk. 2) That the record pertaining to the case may kindly be summoned.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that vide Annexure P-1, Central University of Himachal Pradesh advertised certain posts including two posts of Upper Division Clerk meant for unreserved category. The petitioner, who belongs to Scheduled Caste category, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) applied for appointment against said post, being eligible to participate in the process. He was called upon to participate in the written test vide Annexure P-2 and in terms of Annexure P-3, dated 10.05.2018, his name was reflected in the list of successful candidates as against his name, it was mentioned “selected". However, thereafter, the said Selection-cum-waiting list was put in abeyance in terms of Annexure P-4, i.e. corrigendum dated 11.05.2018, and thereafter another select list, dated 24.05.2018 (Annexure P-5) was issued, in which the name of the petitioner was not mentioned. In fact, there was none reflected as successful for appointment against the post of UDC. 3. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when the petitioner was already reflected as a selected candidate in terms of Annexure P-3, there was no occasion to put the said select list in abeyance, and that too without assigning any reason. He submitted that thereafter, the arbitrary exclusion of the name of the petitioner from the list of selected candidates as per Annexure P-5 is totally unjustified in the eyes of law. He submitted that on this short count, the present petition deserves to be 3 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) allowed. Accordingly, he prayed that respondent-University be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner on the basis of his selection, which is evident from Annexure P-3, against the post of Upper Division Clerk. 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India by referring to the reply filed by respondent-University submitted that there is no merit in the present petition. He submitted that the selection criteria for the post in question was in terms of Annexure R-2, which comprised of an objective type written examination, comprising 100 multiple choice questions. He submitted that these multiple choice questions were to be divided into two Sections, i.e. Section ‘A’ containing 50 questions and Section ‘B’ containing 50 questions, with the following composition: Subject Number of questions Maximum Marks Minimum Marks to be scored to qualify for Merit List SECTION-A English 15 15 8 for UR and 6 for SC/ST/OBC/ PwD Maths 20 20 10 for UR and 8 for SC/ST/OBC/PwD General Knowledge and General Awareness 15 15 8 for UR and 6 for SC/ST/OBC/ PwD SECTION-B Domain Knowledge and/or 50 50 24 for UR and 4 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) Knowledge of Rules of Government of India, Office Procedures & University Act 20 for SC/ST/OBC/PwD TOTAL 100 100 50 for UR and 40 for SC/ST/OBC/PwD 5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India submitted that the above demonstrates that the minimum qualifying marks for General Knowledge and General Awareness against the post reserved for unreserved category were 8. He further submitted that in the present case, no post of Upper Division Clerk was advertised under the category of Scheduled Caste. However, as the petitioner had submitted his Scheduled Caste certificate also when he applied for the post, he was erroneously treated as a Scheduled Caste candidate, and was reflected as a selected candidate in terms of Annexure P-3, by giving him the benefit of the minimum qualifying marks for the SC category, which were 6 for General Knowledge and General Awareness. 6. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has referred to Annexure R-4 appended with the reply and submitted that the petitioner, whose roll number was 08393, had secured 11 marks in 5 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) English, 14 marks in Math, 6 marks in GK, and 27 marks in Domain Knowledge. He submitted that as the petitioner had failed to secure minimum 8 marks in GK, he was treated as a failed candidate in the process. Learned DSGI submitted that Annexure P-3 was kept in abeyance due to administrative reasons and thereafter, eligibility of all the candidates was reassessed, and said mistake was noted and rectified. It is on this count that the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the list of candidates selected for the post of Upper Division Clerk. In fact, he submitted that as none qualified for appointment against the post of Upper Division Clerk as per the norms of the advertisement, therefore, no one was selected for the said posts. 7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, belonging to Scheduled Caste category, was entitled to the benefit of Scheduled Caste category, and the consideration of his candidature as a General category candidate is bad in law. 6 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents on record. 9. In terms of advertisement, dated 27th May 2017 (Annexure P-1), respondent-University invited applications for recruitment of non-teaching positions. This included two posts of Upper Division Clerk, which were ‘Group-C’ posts in the pay scale of ₹5,200 – ₹20,200 + grade pay of ₹2,400/-. Both the posts were for unreserved category. 10. A perusal of the advertisement further demonstrates that as far as other posts are concerned, in many of the said posts, reservation was given to SC, ST, OBC, and other categories. However, as observed hereinabove, as far as the post of Upper Division Clerk is concerned, both the posts were for unreserved category. 11. Though, it is not in dispute that in terms of Annexure P- 3, the name of the petitioner was mentioned as the selected candidate for the post of Upper Division Clerk, but from the reply 7 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) filed by the respondent-University, it is evident that the said reflection of his name in Annexure P-3 was erroneous. As has been explained by the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, in terms of Annexure R-2, appended with the petition, the subject-wise bifurcation of the number of questions in the written examination entailed maximum marks which could be awarded against a subject, as well as minimum marks to be scored to qualify for the merit list. This demonstrates that unless and until a candidate had secured the minimum marks to qualify for merit list, his or her name could not have been reflected in the merit list. 12. As far as the General Knowledge and General Awareness is concerned, the minimum marks to be scored to qualify for merit list were 8 for unreserved category and 6 for SC, ST, OBC, and PwD categories. Obviously, the minimum marks for SC, ST, OBC, and PwD categories were to be taken into consideration where a post was reserved for these categories and for candidates applying under the said category. Herein, as the posts of Upper Division Clerk were advertised as unreserved posts, the benchmark for qualifying for merit list was the one which was prescribed for unreserved category. 8 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) 13. As observed hereinabove, the minimum marks to be secured to qualify for merit list for the posts advertised as unreserved was 8 in General Knowledge and General Awareness. A perusal of Annexure P-5 demonstrates that the petitioner, whose roll number is 08393, had secured 6 marks in the subject of General Knowledge. That being so, obviously, as the petitioner had not secured the minimum of 8 marks which were required to be secured for qualifying for merit list against an unreserved post, he was rendered ineligible for selection against the two unreserved posts of Upper Division Clerk. 14. It could not be demonstrated during the course of hearing of this petition that the petitioner indeed had secured 8 or above marks in the subject of General Knowledge and General Awareness. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that because the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category, therefore, for him, the pass marks should have been construed as 6, is without any merit. This is for the reason that here it is not a case that all the posts advertised were for unreserved category and yet in the criteria of qualification, it was mentioned that for unreserved 9 ( 2026:HHC:31303 ) category, the pass marks were 8 and for reserved category, the pass marks were 6 for General Knowledge and General Awareness subject. This criteria, evidently and apparently, was there in light of the fact that amongst the posts which were advertised, and which were more than 50 in number, various posts were advertised for Scheduled Caste category, OBC category and other reserved categories. 15. Therefore, in light of above observations, as this Court does not find any infirmity in the act of the respondents of not including the name of the petitioner in the subsequent select list issued i.e. Annexure P-5, as obviously he had not qualified for being reflected in the merit list for appointment against the post of Upper Division Clerk, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 16. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge 29th July, 2026. (jai)