IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. 7201 of 2026 Decided on 12.8.2026 Nitin Rathore and another …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioners: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of instant petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:- “(i) That the Writ of Mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondent to fix the criteria for qualifying marks i.e. 35% for the unreserved category as fixed by the H.P. Rajya Chayan Aayog. Further the respondents may kindly be directed to declare qualified the petitioners in the written exam for the post of TGT (NM) and offer them appointment against the post of TGT (NM) (on job trainee basis) from the due date with all consequential benefits as per advertisement dated 20.12.2025.” 2. Brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of this 2 petition, are that in terms of advertisement, Annexure P-9, the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education invited applications for filing up various posts, including the post of TGT (Non Medical) and Drawing Master, respectively. Their grievance is that they have not been declared as passed candidates because in terms of Annexure P-9, the passing marks have been fixed 45% of the total of 200 marks for Unreserved and EWS categories and 40% for SC, ST, OBC, including PwD categories. The petitioners belong to the Unreserved category. 3. The instructions which have been imparted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board demonstrate that the petitioners secured 87 and 79 marks, respectively out of 200, i.e. less than 45% and therefore they have been declared as failed candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in a similar process, which has been initiated for recruitment by the H.P. Rajya Chayan Aayog in terms of Annexure P-6, the qualifying marks are mentioned as 35% for General category candidates and 30% for Reserved category candidates. He submitted that a mandamus be issued directing the respondents to fix the criteria of qualifying marks as 35% for the Unreserved category, as has been fixed by the H.P. Rajya Chayan Aayog, and 3 thereafter, the petitioners be declared as successful candidates. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the writ petition, as also the instructions, which have been imparted by the the H.P. Board of School Education, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. The process which is the subject matter of this Court relates to limited direct recruitment of TGT (Arts), Non-Medical, Medical, Sanskrit, Hindi Teachers and Drawing Masters and, that too, from in-service SMC teachers engaged under the SMC Policy for recruitment as job trainees. In other words, the process of recruitment which was undertaken by the HP Board of School Education, was a limited process for the appointment of SMC teachers, who were engaged under the SMC policy against the posts of job trainees against the posts of TGTs, Drawing Master and JBT. The petitioners being SMC teachers, participated in the limited direct recruitment as job trainees as has been mentioned hereinabove. In the written test, they have failed to secure 45% marks, i.e., the minimum qualifying marks. A perusal of Annexure P-9, the advertisement, demonstrates that it was clearly mentioned in the same that there shall be one question paper in four different series, having questions of multiple choice 4 of objective type carrying 200 marks and the pass percentage for Unreserved and EWS category candidates was 45% and for Reserved categories mentioned therein was 40%. Now, it is not as if when the advertisement was issued, the minimum qualifying marks were were 35% for Unreserved categories and 30% for Reserved category, which were subsequently changed to the prejudice of the petitioners. The advertisement was express, explicit and unambiguous that the qualifying marks for Unreserved and EWS categories were 45% out of 200, i.e. 90 marks, and for Reserved category, it was 40%, i.e. 80 marks out of 200. The petitioners participated in the examination knowingfully well that the same was the criteria mentioned in the advertisement. 5. Now, coming to Annexure P-6, the same relates to the recruitment of TGT Arts, Non-Medical and Medical from the open market, that is to say, from amongst those who were eligible to participate in the process for appointment against the said posts. It was unlike the process initiated, vide Annexure P-6, which was confined to SMC teachers only. Not only this, Annexure P-6 is a Corrigendum dated 20.06.2025, which was a Corrigendum to an advertisement dated 27.05.2025, whereas advertisement Annexure 5 P-9 for limited direct recruitment is dated 20.12.2025. This means that Annexure P-9 was issued after Annexure P-6 and if at all the petitioners were aggrieved by the fact that the pass percentage mentioned in Annexure P-9 was arbitrary and it should have been in consonance with Annexure P-6, nothing prevented thenm from approaching the Court immediately after the issuance of the advertisement. However, herein what has happened is that the petitioners participated in the process knowingfully well as to what were the minimum passing marks and thereafter having failed in the process, now a mandamus is being prayed for that the pass percentage be reduced from 45% to 35%, as far as the Unreserved category is concerned. Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered view that what has to be the pass percentage, is the sole prerogative of the employer or the Recruiting Agency and unless and until the pass percentage on the face of it is arbitrary, there is no occasion for a Court to intervene or interfere with the same, just for the convenience of a few, like the petitioners herein. It is not as if hundreds of candidates have approached this Court on the ground that the pass percentage fixed was extremely high and extremely arbitrary, which has resulted in a majority of the candidates not securing the minimum marks. Even otherwise, the 6 pass percentage was not even 50%. Iin terms of Annexure P-9, it is 45% for Unreserved category and 40% for Reserved category, which is a very reasonable pass percentage. 6. Accordingly, in the light of the above discussions, this Court sees no reason to grant the relief, as is being prayed for by the petitioners and further as this Court does not find any merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 12, 2026 (Guleria)