2026:HHC:16722 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.3962 of 2019 Decided on: 13.05.2026 Bhupesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________ _ For the petitioner: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Angrez Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) That the respondents may kindly be asked to keep one post vacant till the disposal of the present writ petition as the last person inducted in the general category has got 52.00 marks in General (UR) where as if petitioner succeeds in present writ petition then he will get more than the last candidate. (ii) That an independent panel of experts may kindly be ordered to be constituted to look into the matter to do the complete justice.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a Screening Test was conducted by respondent No.3 for filling up certain posts of TGT, in which the petitioner also 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:16722 participated. Upon uploading of the posting of the Provisional Answer Key on the website, as the petitioner was not satisfied with the same, he filed his objections thereto in terms of Annexure P-4, qua questions at Serial No.10,14, 15, 58, 64, 68, 70, 72 and 80. 3. The pleadings further demonstrate that the objections of the petitioner alongwith objections filed by the other aggrieved candidates were referred by the concerned respondents to the Experts Panel, consisting of independent subject Experts. The provisional Answer Key of the questions was vetted by the Panel in light of the objections submitted by the candidates by taking into consideration the standard Textbooks on the subject. Thereafter, on the basis of advise of said Experts Panel, the Answer Key was finalized for evaluation of objective type written Screening Test of all appearing candidates and the Answer Key of Series-D, i.e. the Series relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this case was published on 18.06.2019. 4. As is further evident from the pleadings, the Answer Key of questions No.10, 14 and 15 was revised. Thereafter, on the basis of said final Answer Key which was prepared on the advise of the Expert Panel, the evaluation of OMR Sheets was conducted uniformly and result was declared. 5. In all, 1508 candidates for further selection were shortlisted and as the petitioner qualified the written Screening Test, 3 2026:HHC:16722 he was invited for 15 marks evaluation. On the basis of overall merit, the petitioner secured 51.46 marks in General unreserved Category and as he failed to find place in the final Select List, cut-off whereof was 52 marks, his name was not recommended for appointment. His name was included in the Waiting List at Serial No.38. It is in this backdrop that thereafter, the petitioner filed this writ petition, praying for the reliefs already enumerated hereinabove. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also learned Assistant Advocate General and learned Counsel for respondent No.3, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case for more than one reasons. 7. Firstly, as is the stand taken by the respondents in their reply, the objections raised to the provisional Answer Key were subjected to the scrutiny of Subject Experts by respondent No.3 and thereafter, the final Answer Key was prepared on the basis of their advise. In the light of the settled legal position, it is not for this Court to substitute its view for the view of the Experts. 8. Besides this, herein, the pleadings demonstrate that after the final Answer Key was published on the basis of advise of the Expert Panel and the same was not objected to by the petitioner by assailing it before the appropriate Fora/Court of Law. He acquiescend to the same and participated in the further process 4 2026:HHC:16722 which was initiated by respondent No.3 on the basis of merit so prepared, in terms whereof, the petitioner was also invited for further evaluation of 15 marks. It is only thereafter, that when the petitioner was not recommended for appointment, as his name was not amongst the meritorious candidates, that the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition in the month of November, 2019. Had the petitioner really been serious about laying challenge to the final Answer Key published by respondent No.3, nothing prevented him from assailing it immediately after the same was published in the month of June, 2019. However, as observed hereinabove, he acquiescend to the same, did not raise any objection thereto, allowed the same to attain finality and participated in the further selection process, wherein he was invited for evaluation qua further 15 marks. All this is demonstrative of the fact that filing of the present petition was nothing, but an afterthought, after the petitioner was unsuccessful in the process of selection. 9. Besides this, the petition is otherwise also bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. The selected candidates, who shall be adversely affected in case this Court is to concur with the contention of the petitioner are not before the Court. The process was taken to its logical conclusion by the respondents in the year 2019 and the Court stands informed that appointments were also offered immediately thereafter. Obviously, in these circumstances, as those 5 2026:HHC:16722 persons, who are not before the Court, are serving the Department for the last about six years, they cannot now be taken by surprise by accepting the contentions which have been raised in the petition. 10. Accordingly, in light of above observations, as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 13, 2026 (Rishi) 6 2026:HHC:16722