IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 15783 of 2026. Decided on : 10 th September , 2026 Richa Sen ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Ms. Seema Kaushal Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 3. Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Notice. Ms. Seema Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Thakur, learned counsel appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 ,3 and 2, respectively. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive reliefs: “(i) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to conduct document verification of the petitioner for the post of Special Educator (VI to XII) post Code 25023 under Roll 25023000177. (ii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for final selection/appointment to the post of Special Educator (Post Code 25023), if found eligible upon verification, at par with other selected candidates. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 (iii) That the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature on merit and include her name in the final selection process, if found eligible and merit worthy, notwithstanding her absence on the scheduled date may kindly be issued in the interest of justice.” When the matter was listed in the morning session, considering the urgency of the cause raised by the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 was directed to have instructions forthwith in the matter. Instructions have now come from respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the parties have accordingly been heard in this matter. 3. From the case set up by the parties, it becomes evident that the petitioner appeared in computer based screening test conducted by respondent No.2-Rajya Chayan Aayog for the post of Special Educator (Class-VI to Class-VIII). The result of computer based screening test was declared vide notice dated 01.08.2026. The petitioner qualified the said computer based screening test. She was shortlisted for document verification. The notice dated 01.08.2026 mentioned that document verification process would be conducted with effect from 26.08.2026. It was further notified that detailed schedule of document verification would be uploaded on the official website of respondent No. 2; That no separate 3 call letters would be sent by post. The above information was also intimated to candidates on their registered email IDs. The candidates were further informed that in case any candidate fails to appear for document verification on the date fixed, his/her candidature would not be considered for further stages of selection process. No further opportunity would be afforded to such candidate thereafter. Schedule for document verification was uploaded on the official website of respondent No.2 on 10.08.2026. Emails were also sent to the concerned candidates, including the petitioner, intimating about the date and schedule for document verification. Along with the office instructions, relevant documents have been appended by respondent No. 2. Document verification of the petitioner was specifically scheduled for 27.08.2026. For the purpose of verification, experts/representatives from Education Department had also been associated with the process of scrutiny and verification of the eligibility and documents. The petitioner neither appeared for document verification on the scheduled date, i.e. 27.08.2026 nor she intimated respondent No.2-Aayog in advance regarding her inability to appear, nor she requested for any alternate date on account of any compelling circumstances. 4 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had been prevented by compelling circumstances in not attending the document verification. According to the learned counsel, petitioner's mother had suffered a fall on 19.08.2026 on account of which a cast was put on her leg at a hospital in Sundernagar, District Mandi; In view of nature of injury suffered by petitioner's mother, she had to be taken to Delhi where she was operated upon on 24.08.2026. It is on account of these reasons the petitioner could not appear for document verification on the scheduled date before respondent No. 2. 5. The petitioner has not enclosed all the relevant medical documents in support of her above assertion. The only document appended is an OPD slip of 19.08.2026 from a private medical center of Sundernagar, District Mandi. Be that as it may. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to be vigilant about the relevant dates/schedule of the selection process whereunder she had participated. It is an admitted position on record that neither the petitioner appeared for document verification on 27.08.2026, which was much later than the date on which her mother statedly suffered a fall, nor petitioner intimated respondent No.2 about her inability to appear, nor she sought for any alternate date on account of any compelling circumstances. Respondent No.2 justifiably 5 contends that allowing verification of petitioner’s documents at this stage may disrupt finalization of recruitment process. Petitioner has been utterly negligent, absolutely remiss in not being diligent and careful in adhering to the most crucial dates of the selection process. Nonetheless, the fact remains that final result yet remains to be processed by the respondents for declaration, as is apparent from the office instructions. That being the position, in order to balance the equities, the Court proposes to impose cost of Rs. 20,000/- upon the petitioner, which the learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to deposit. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, looking beyond the technical default on the part of the petitioner and considering the fact that result of selection process is yet to finalized, this writ petition is disposed of with direction that subject to petitioner's depositing costs of Rs. 20,000 with respondent No. 2 by 14.09.2026 on or before 11.00 A.M., her document verification will be carried out by respondent No.2 on the same day by 4.00 PM, whereafter respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to declare the result of the selection process in question, including the result of petitioner. This order has been passed keeping view the facts and circumstances of the case and shall not 6 be treated as precedent. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 10th September, 2026. (jai)