Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mohit Gupta vs State Of H.P. And Others on 29 May, 2026
2026:HHC:20424 )
THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
LPA No.506 of 2024 a/w
LPA No. 34 of 2025
Reserved on: 29.05.2026
.
Decided on : 29.05.2026
Uploaded on: 29.05.2026
1. LPA No. 506 of 2024
Mohit Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
of
2. LPA No. 34 of 2025
Pratibha Chauhan ...Appellant
Versus
rt
State of H.P. and others ...Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellant(s) : Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate in both the
appeals.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate
General, for respondents No. 1 to 4 in
LPA No. 506 of 2024 and for respondent
No.1 in LPA No. 34 of 2025
: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.5 in LPA No. 506 of 2024
and for respondent No.2 in LPA No. 34 of
2025
: Respondent No. 6 in LPA No. 506 of
2024 and respondent No.3 in LPA No. 34
of 2025, already ex parte.
1
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS
-2-
: Mr. Dilip Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.
Manish Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 7 to 11 and 13 to 15 in
LPA No. 506 of 2024 and for respondent
No.4 in LPA No. 34 of 2025
.
: Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.12 in LPA No. 506 of 2024
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Since the aforesaid two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 20.11.2024 and raise a common question, hence they of are being taken up together. By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2024, petitions preferred by the present appellants were rt dismissed by the learned Single Judge. For the adjudication of the appeals in the case at hand facts in CWPOA No. 5329 of 2019 wherefrom LPA No. 506 of 2024 arises are being considered herein below.
2. The present respondent No.5 had issued an advertisement bearing No. IV-2013 dated 1.1.2013 for selection of various posts to be filled up on the basis of Himachal Pradesh Administrative and Allied Services Competitive Examination, 2013. A perusal of the advertisement Annexure A-1 (page 16 of the writ paper book) reflects that the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive Examination consisted of three successive stages to complete the selection process (See Clause 4 of the Advertisement).
Stage-1 was a preliminary examination; it is on the basis of the marks obtained in the preliminary examination that a candidate was to be ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -3- declared to be qualified by respondent No.5 for admission to the next stage i.e. main examination (See Clause 4.2.6 of the Advertisement).
Stage-2 was termed as the main written examination; a candidate .
who qualifies the main examination was to be called for a viva voce individually. The final selection was to be determined on the basis of written performance in the main examination and viva voce (See Clause 4.4 of the Advertisement). Viva voce was the third stage in the of selection process.
3. In terms of the advertisement, specifically Clause 5 rt therein, for being eligible to participate in the selection process as per the advertisement (Annexure A-1) in the case at hand, a candidate was required to be a citizen of India, having minimum educational qualifications as prescribed and having the requisite prescribed age laid down in the advertisement. Insofar as age and payment of fee for applying under the advertisement are concerned, "relaxed standards"
have been prescribed for the reserved category candidates therein.
4. Admittedly, for the purpose of qualifying the preliminary examination, different cut-off marks were prescribed for the General Category and the Reserved Category candidates. It is the case of the appellant that insofar as respondents No. 6 to 10 are concerned, they had not qualified the preliminary examination by obtaining more marks than those prescribed for the General Category candidates. According to the appellant, respondents No. 6 to 10 had gained entry to the main ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -4- examination based on the "relaxed standards" i.e lower qualifying marks prescribed for the reserved category candidates.
5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that once .
respondents No. 6 to 10 had cleared the preliminary examination on the relaxed standards, then after the completion of the selection process i.e. main examination and viva voce, the aforesaid respondents could not have been recommended against posts meant of for General Category candidates even though in the main examination, the said reserved category candidates i.e respondents rt No. 6 to 10 may have secured higher marks than the benchmark prescribed for the General Category candidates.
6. In the response filed by respondent No.5, the stand taken is that the preliminary examination is a screening test held to shortlist candidates. The final merit list is to be determined on the basis of marks obtained in the main examination and the viva voce. Since in the main examination respondents No. 6 to 10 had obtained more marks than the cut-off marks prescribed for the General Category, therefore their candidature was considered against the General Category. A similar stand has been taken by respondents No. 6 to 15 in the reply filed to the original application. In the rejoinder filed to the reply filed by respondent No. 5, the appellant (petitioner) has reiterated the stand taken in the petition.
7. Heard counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -5-8. There cannot be any dispute with the general proposition that if some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit;
.
they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes which stands well settled as laid down by the nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 supp(2) 217.
Relevant extract whereof reads as follow;
of
811. "In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in rt the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates."
9. The said view was reiterated in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research v. K.L. Narasimhan, 1997(6) SCC 283, wherein a three-Judge Bench of the apex Court held as follows: (SCC p. 293) "5. ... It is settled law that if a Dalit or Tribe candidate gets selected for admission to a course or appointment to a post on the basis of merit as general candidate, he should not be treated as reserved candidate. Only one who does get admission or appointment by virtue of relaxation of eligibility criteria should be treated as reserved candidate."
10. It is also well settled that reservation is an enabling provision. Manner and extent of the same can be provided by an executive order including exemption, concession, migration of reserved candidates into general category candidates, etc. In this respect a reference can gainfully be made to the apex court ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -6- judgement in Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352: Relevant extract whereof reads as under;
22. Article 16 clause (4) of the Constitution is an .
enabling provision empowering the State for making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The orders issued by the State Government from time to time were the orders contemplated by Article 16 clause (4). It is well settled by the nine-Judge Constitution Bench that of reservation in favour of backward classes can be provided by a State Government by an executive order also.
rt 23. The reservation being the enabling provision, the manner and extent to which reservation is provided has to be spelled from the orders issued by the Government from time to time. In the present case, there is no issue pertaining to the extent of reservation provided by the State Government to the SC, ST and OBC candidates. The issue involved in the present case is as to whether the reserved category candidates can be allowed to be migrated into general category candidates. The reservation is wide enough to include exemption, concession, etc. The exemption, concession, etc. are allowable to the reserved category candidates to effectuate and to give effect to the object behind Article 16 clause (4) of the Constitution. The State is fully empowered to lay down the criteria for grant of exemption, concession and reservation and the manner and methodology to effectuate such reservation. The migration of reserved candidates into general category candidates is also part and parcel of larger concept of reservation and the Government Orders issued on 17-6-1996, 4-3-2002 and 24-6-2008 were the Government Orders providing for methodology for migration of reserved category candidates into general category candidates which was well within the power of State. Neither before us nor even before the High Court, the aforesaid government orders, last being 24-6-2008, were under challenge. As noted above, the High Court itself has returned a finding that earlier methodology of providing for migration of ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -7- reserved category candidates into general category candidates was reversed by order dated 11-5-2011 by which despite taking any special concession, reserved category candidates could be migrated into general category candidates.
.
(See also Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission, (2019) 7 SCC 383 para
34)
11. The question whether the benefit of lower examination fees, higher age limits, etc. are crutches which disqualify reserved category candidate from being appointed as a general category of candidate on merits was considered by the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others rt (2010) 3 SCC 119, wherein it was held that age relaxation and waiver of examination fee enable a reserved candidate to compete with others, but such relaxation/waiver is not reservation in itself is merely an aid to reservation. The Apex Court went on to hold that if such a candidate belonging to the reserved category takes benefit of waiver of examination fees or concession in examination fees or of a higher age limit prescribed and post claiming the same is selected on the basis of his own merit in the written examination, then he is to be appointed as a general category candidate and not as a reserved candidate as on the basis of the same, no advantage has accrued in favour of the Reserved category candidate in the selection process, as the same has no relevance in determination of the inter se merit on the basis of the final written test and viva voce. The Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:-
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -8-"48. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions of the appellants that relaxation in fee or age would deprive the candidates belonging to the reserved category of an opportunity to compete against the .
general category candidates is without any foundation. It is to be noticed that the reserved category candidates have not been given any advantage in the selection process. All the candidates had to appear in the same written test and face the same interview. It is therefore quite apparent that the concession in fee and age relaxation only enabled certain candidates belonging to the reserved category to fall within the zone of consideration. The concession in age did of not in any manner tilt the balance in favour of the reserved category candidates, in the preparation of final merit/select list.
49. It is permissible for the State in view of Articles rt 14, 15, 16 and 38 of the Constitution of India to make suitable provisions in law to eradicate the disadvantages of candidates belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. Reservations are a mode to achieve the equality of opportunity guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates. It is only thereafter the merit of the candidates is to bedetermined without any further concessions in favour of the reserved category candidates.
Xxx.. Xxx... xxx...
Xxx.. Xxx... xxx...
52. In the present case, the concessions availed of by the reserved category candidates in age relaxation and fee concessions had no relevance to the determination of the inter se merit on the basis of the final written test and interview. The ratio of the aforesaid judgement in fact permits reserved category candidates to be included in the general category candidates on the basis of merit."
The concessions availed of by the reserved category candidates in matter of fee and age have no relevance to determine the inter se merit which is determined on the basis of interview and test.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -9-12. The aforesaid judgment came up for consideration in Union of India and others vs. Sajib Roy, SLP (C) Nos.21392- .
21393/2019, decided on September 09, 2025 (2025 INSC 1084), wherein the Apex Court observed that the decision in Jitender Kumar's case (supra) was not founded on general principles, but on interpretation of the relevant statutes, Government orders and instructions regulating the selection process in the said case. Therein, of the Government instructions dated 25.3.1994 permitted the reserved category candidates to avail concessions with respect to age limit, fee rt (waiver) and after having availed such concessions, could still be adjusted against the unreserved seats. To the contrary, in Sajib Roy, there existed an Office Memorandum which prohibited a reserved category candidate from migrating to an unreserved post if, during the selection process, such reserved category candidate had availed of "relaxed standards" (age limit, experience, qualification, number of chances) while applying for the selection. After considering the entire case law on the subject concerning the primacy of recruitment rules governing migration, the Court in Sajib Roy observed and held as follows:-
"Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -10- selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category .
seats".
13. Other than the aforesaid in Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017), 1 SCC 350, the issue with regard to migration of reserved category candidates into general category was objected by the candidates belonging to general category on the of ground that they have been selected after obtaining relaxation of marks permissible to reserved category candidates in TET. Hence it rt was contended that they were not entitled to be included into general category. The issue raised in Vikas Sankhala is mentioned in para 24 thereof, which is to the following effect: (SCC p. 364).
"24. It so happened that many candidates who belonged to reserved category got higher marks than the last candidates from the general category who was selected for the appointment in the said recruitment process. In terms of its various circulars, which we shall refer to at the appropriate stage, such reserved category candidates who emerged more meritorious than the general category candidates were allowed to migrate in general category. Effect thereof was that these candidates though belonging to reserved category occupied the post meant for general category. According to the writ petitioners (the respondents herein), it was impermissible as these reserved category candidates got selected after availing certain concessions and, therefore, there was no reason to allow them to shift to general category. The High Court has accepted this plea treating the relaxation in pass marks in TET as concession availed by the reserved category candidates in the selection process."::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -11-
14. The Supreme Court, ultimately held that the relaxation given in the marks in TET examination is not part of recruitment process. In para 80 of the judgment, the apex Court reached on the .
following conclusion: (Vikas Sankhala case, SCC p. 385) "80. ... Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing that concession was given in the recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET."
of
15. Since relaxation given in TET was held not to be a part of recruitment process, therefore circulars issued by the State of rt Rajasthan were held not to be applicable. (See Gaurav Pradhan v.
State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352).
16. However, the aforesaid judgment was distinguished by the apex court in Government (NCT of Delhi) and others vs. Praveen Kumar and others, (2019) 10 SCC 120 (Three Judge Bench) wherein the question being considered was whether a candidate qualifying CTET with relaxed marks from a State other than Delhi could compete for unreserved vacancies in Delhi. Therein, the essential qualification prescribed for passing CTET was 60% marks.
The respondent therein belonged to the OBC category from outside Delhi and did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for passing CTET with 60% marks. Since the respondents therein did not possess an OBC certificate issued by NCT of Delhi nor had passed the CTET with 60% ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -12- marks, therefore, the candidate could not be considered against the open category and, hence, his claim was disallowed.
17. In the aforesaid legal matrix, reliance has been placed on .
the judgment 2026 SCC Online SC 457 titled Chaya and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another, to contend that respondents No. 6 to 10 would be entitled to be considered against the general category despite the fact that they have cleared the preliminary of examination on relaxed standards. In the said case, reserved category candidates had challenged the merit list prepared in rt pursuance to the Teacher Aptitude Intelligence Test (TAIT) whereby, despite having obtained more marks than the general category candidates, they had been excluded from the merit list on the ground that they had availed the benefit of relaxation in the qualifying marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) which was an eligibility condition to appear at the (TAIT). In the said case, there existed no prohibition in the recruitment rules/notification with respect to excluding reserved category candidates, who were more meritorious than the last selected General Category candidate, from being considered under the General Category. In the aforesaid judgment, after considering the entire case law, the following legal principles were enunciated, which read as under:
(i) A concession/relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry of a candidate into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for qualifying the written examination if such relaxation does ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -13- not affect the merit which has to be determined solely on the basis of performance in the main examination and the interview, if any ii. A relaxation or concession in the qualifying examination merely creates a level playing field where no concession or .
relaxation is granted in the ultimate selection and the same is solely made on the basis of inter se merit.
(iii) If a candidate belonging to a reserved category. does not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria prescribed for a selection, he/she cannot be permitted to migrate to an open category
(iv) Migration of a reserved category candidate who has availed of a concession/relaxation in qualifying examination depends on the Recruitment Rules or the employment of notification. If such Recruitment Rules or employment notification permits such migration, the same is permissible.
(v) Such migration shall also be permissible if the Recruitment Rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it.
rt
18. After laying down the aforesaid, the Apex Court observed that the qualifying marks for passing TET for the general category were fixed at 60% by the NCTE. However, relaxation in TET marks was expressly permitted by the NCTE, and in this respect, the State Government, local bodies, and Government aided and unaided institutions were granted the liberty to grant concessions to persons belonging to the reserved categories. In pursuance thereto, the concerned Government granted relaxation to the reserved category candidates. The relaxed standard for qualifying TET with respect to the reserved categories was 55%.
19. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Apex Court was of the view that the relaxation granted in favour of the reserved category candidates in the qualifying examination i.e. TET only enabled the reserved category candidates to participate in the main examination ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -14- i.e. TAIT and it only affected eligibility. Such relaxation only granted a level playing field. Merit was to be solely determined inter se on the basis of performance in the main examination i.e. TAIT. Moreover, as .
has already been stated supra in paragraph 17, migration from reserved category to unreserved category was permissible. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Apex Court observed as follows:-
32.The appellants who admittedly are more meritorious than the last selected candidate under of the general category cannot be excluded from consideration under the general category, in the absence of any express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules/notification The relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not rt merit and migration is permissible in the absence of any prohibition. The decisions of this Court in Pradeep Kumar (supra), Union of India v. Sajib Roy (supra) and union of India vs G. Kiran (supra) have no application to the obtaining factual matrix of these appeals, whereas decisions of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) and Vikas Sankhala (supra) apply to the facts of these appeals The appellants are entitled to migrate to general category.
We fail to understand as to how the aforesaid judgement in Chaya and others cited supra helps the cause of the respondents.
20. In the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, reference can gainfully be made to Union of India vs. G. Kiran and others, arising out of SLP (C) No. 4743 of 2020, decided on 6.1.2026, wherein the question that fell for consideration was whether a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation while qualifying Preliminary Examination, though secured more marks than cut-off of the General Category candidate in the Main Examination and ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -15- Interview for personality test and secured place in the final merit list, can be considered against an unreserved vacancy?
21. Therein the examination consisted of two tiers-first tier .
Preliminary Examination followed by tier two involving Main Exam (Written) and Interview. Only those candidates who were found suitable in the first tier could avail entry for the tier two. The opinion of the court was that for allocation of unreserved vacancy to a candidate of of reserved category, the selection must be on 'General Standard' without availing any 'Relaxed Standard' in either eligibility or selection rt criteria. Further by placing reliance upon Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwanav. Gujarat Public Service Commission, (2019) 7 SCC 383, the court was of the view that if a reserved category candidate takes benefit of relaxation though at initial stage, it will effectively amount to taking relaxation even at the final stage of the selection process because without giving relaxation to him, he was not in a position to participate in the Main examination and to set forth his claim of cadre allocation. Hence the court opined that the distinction sought to be drawn between the preliminary and final examination was totally misconceived. The court held as follows;
"It is needless to say, respondent No.1, having qualified the Preliminary Examination availing 'relaxed standard, becoming eligible for the Main Examination must be considered against the reserved vacancies only and cannot be considered on general/unreserved vacancies for the purpose of cadre allocation".::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -16-
22. From the advertisement (Annexure A-1) (page 16 of the writ petition) issued in the case at hand, qua H.P. Administrative Combined Competitive Examination, 2013, it is evident that the said .
examination consists of three stages. Stage-1 is the preliminary examination, Stage-2 consists of the main examination (written), and the third stage is the interview. For screening suitable number of candidates for the second stage i.e. main examination, all candidates of are required to qualify the preliminary examination. Without qualifying the first stage i.e. preliminary examination, a candidate is not in a rt position to participate in the main examination (written); therefore, even though the preliminary examination is merely a screening test and marks obtained may not be counted for determining final merit, nonetheless it is an integral stage of the examination and relaxation availed by any candidate even at the stage of preliminary examination cannot be ignored. Admittedly, in the case at hand, respondents No. 6 to 10 have appeared in the main examination (written) on account of "relaxed standards" in the "selection process" in the preliminary examination held in the case at hand. It is pertinent to note that the "relaxed standards" in the case at hand are not with respect to "eligibility" i.e. age, qualification. The details of marks obtained by them are as under:-
Category Cut-off marks (minimum)
General 202.8
SC 156.24
ST 161.12
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS
-17-
OBC 178.48
Gen. WFF 133.34
Gen. EX S Man 95.84
SC Ex S Man 61.12
ST Ex S Man 19.44
.
OBC Ex S Man 28.46
Sr. No. Names Marks
Scored
1. Sh. Pankaj Sharma (SC) 156.24
2. Shri Chet Singh (SC) 165.98
3. Shri. Anil Kumar (OBC) 181.24
4. Shri Chander Pal Singh (OBC) 188.20
5. Shri Chander Veer Singh (OBC) 185.40.
of
23. The "relaxed standards" in the "selection process" on the basis of which the, respondents No. 6 to 10 have qualified the rt preliminary examination to gain entry into the next stage (main examination) is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. In this respect reference can be made to the apex court judgement in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission, (2019) 7 SCC 383, '34.....................The distinction sought to be drawn between the preliminary and final examination is totally misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement that a person who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will necessarily avail of the same relaxation even at the final stage. We are of the view that the age relaxation granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category in the instant case is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
(See Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352 relevant extract already stands reproduced supra at para 9) ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -18-
24. 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 of more than a decade. The reserved category candidates who were appointed on migration against unreserved vacancies are not at fault rt 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).
25. 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -19- 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.
26. However, in the case of Ms. Pratibha Chauhan CWPOA of 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 rt 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.
27. 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.
28. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned judgment dated ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS -20- 20.11.2024 is set aside. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
.
(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi)
Chief Justice Judge
29th May, 2026
of
(Tarun Singh)
rt
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 11:30:48 :::CIS