Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 21.8.2025 vs Himachal Pradesh Public Service ... on 21 August, 2025
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2025:HHC:29190
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3239 of 2024
.
Date of Decision: 21.8.2025
_____________________________________________________________________
Pinki
.........Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No.1/Commission.
Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, for respondent
No.2/HRTC.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Precisely, question, which needs to be determined in the instant case is whether respondent No.1/Commission, could have rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of eligibility after permitting her to participate in the selection process initiated for selection to the post of Conductor in respondent No.2-HRTC.
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that once respondent-
Commission had accepted the application form of the petitioner for appointment against the post of Conductor and thereafter, petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-2- 2025:HHC:29190 had qualified Written Objective Test, it could not have subsequently, .
declared her in-eligible on account of her having not passed 10th and 10+2 examination from any school/institution of the State of Himachal Pradesh and not being Bonafide Himachali .
3. Facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties, are that on receipt of requisition from Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, respondent-commission advertised 360 posts of Conductor vide advertisement No. 4/4-2023 dated 4.4.2023, under different categories (Annexure P-3). As per advertisement under the heading of "important instructions", instruction No. 10 "essential qualifications", it came to be provided that a candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the post, if he/she has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, however, such condition would not apply to Bonafide Himachali, meaning thereby, a candidate desirous of applying for the post in question either should be Bonafide Himachali or should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
4. Petitioner herein, who admittedly belongs to State of Haryana and has not passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, submitted online application, which came to be accepted, as ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-3- 2025:HHC:29190 a result thereof, she was also permitted to participate in Written .
Objective Test, provisionally. Though petitioner passed Written Objective Test, but at the time of preparation of final merit list, her candidature was rejected on the ground that neither she is Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from school/institution situate within Himachal Pradesh. In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for following main reliefs:
"(i) That the impugned note appended in the advertisement dated 04.04.2023, Annexure-P3, under the head 'Essential Qualifications, to the effect that: "A candidate shall be eligible for appointment to this post, if, he/she has passed Matriculation and 10+2 from any school/institution situated within Himachal Pradesh provided this condition shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis", may kindly be quashed and set aside;
(ii) That the impugned Annexure-P9, dated 14.03,2024, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Conductor has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside:
(iii) That the respondent No.1-Commission may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Conductor, Class-III, on contract basis in HRTC and to recommend her name for appointment against the General Unreserved Category post of Conductor, forthwith."
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS-4- 2025:HHC:29190
6. In nutshell, case of the petitioner, as has been projected .
by Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate, is that though petitioner herein is neither Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh , but once Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the respondent-HRTC for the post of Conductor nowhere provide that a candidate desirous of applying against the post of Conductor should have passed matriculation/10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, condition, if any, contained in advertisement contrary to the same especially with regard to eligibility could not have been made ground by the respondents to reject the candidature of the petitioner, who pursuant to her having filed application in terms of advertisement detailed herein above had actually qualified the Written Objective Test.
7. While making this court peruse Recruitment & Promotion Rules, Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel, vehemently argued that condition subsequently, claimed to be incorporated in advertisement in view of the Himachal Pradesh Eligibility for appointment of Class-III & IV Rules, 2019 (in short "Rules 2019"), notified vide Himachal Pradesh Department of Personnel (APIII) No. Per (AP) C-C (17)-2/2018 dated 19.11.2019 Annexure R1/1, prescribing therein eligibility to the effect that a candidate desirous of applying against the post of Conductor should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-5- 2025:HHC:29190 from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal .
Pradesh, is of no consequence, rather selection process, if any, for the post in question could have been conducted strictly in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules governing the post. Besides above, Mr. Sharma, further argued that Rules 2019 were never adopted by respondent-HRTC. If it is so, respondent-commission could not have incorporated eligibility criteria qua the post in question in terms of Rules 2019. He further submitted that since Recruitment & Promotion Rules framed by the respondent-HRTC qua the post of Conductor clearly provides that any citizen of India can apply against the post in question, right of the petitioner being citizen of India could not have been curtailed by the respondent-commission by wrongly prescribing eligibility criteria in terms of Rules 2019, which were otherwise never adopted by the respondent-HRTC.
8. To the contrary, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Commission while justifying the impugned action of the respondent-commission vehemently argued that at the first instance, petitioner herein could not have applied for the post in question on account of her being not eligible, but yet she uploaded online application alongwith the documents. He further submitted that since large number of applications are received online, applicants are permitted to participate in the Written Objective Test, but scrutiny of documents is done thereafter. He submitted that since ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-6- 2025:HHC:29190 during scrutiny of documents, it transpired that petitioner is not .
eligible in terms of advertisement, wherein it stood specifically mentioned that either candidate should be Bonafide Himachali or should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner is otherwise estopped from laying challenge to rejection of her candidature on account of her having participated in selection process. To substantiate his arguments, he placed upon judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anupal Singh and Ors. v.
State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173 and in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (2023) 17 SCC
147.
9. Admittedly, bare perusal of advertisement dated 19.11.2010 clearly reveals that a candidate for the post of Conductor in Himachal Road Transport Corporation should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh or he should have been Bonafide Himachali, however, in the case at hand, petitioner who admittedly is neither Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also not in dispute that petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-7- 2025:HHC:29190 despite her being ineligible in terms of eligibility criteria provided .
under the advertisement uploaded her application online alongwith the documents which was accepted, provisionally. It is also not in dispute that petitioner successfully passed Written Objective Test, but her candidature subsequently came to be rejected on the ground that she was not eligible for the reason that neither she is Bonafide Himachali nor has passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh.
10. Having carefully perused Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1) framed by the respondent-HRTC for the post of Conductor, this Court finds force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that for the post of Conductor, a candidate should have passed matriculation and 10+2 examination from any recognized board or he should be citizen of India. Admittedly, in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post in question, petitioner herein can be said to be eligible for the post in question, but as has been noticed herein above, respondent-Commission after receipt of requisition from respondent-HRTC, advertised 360 posts, thereby specifically providing eligibility criteria under the Rules 2019, which read as under:
Eligibility for 4. A candidate shall be eligible for recruitment appointment to Class-III Post(s), if he/she has passed Matriculation and 10+2 and for Class-IV post (s), if ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-8- 2025:HHC:29190 he/she has passed Middle or Matriculation from any .
School/institution situated within
Himachal Pradesh.
Provided this condition shall not
apply to Bonafide Himachalis.
11. As per aforesaid eligibility, person having passed
matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh or Himachali could have applied for the post in question. At this stage, Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently Bonafide argued that eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement is not in conformity with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1) and as such, same could not have been applied while deciding the candidature of the petitioner, who, strictly in terms of Recruitment & Promotion Rules for the post of Conductor, applied in terms of aforesaid advertisement. As has been noticed herein above, Rules 2019, came to be notified vide order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure R1/1), which was further adopted by the Board of Director of Himachal Road Transport Corporation in its 146th meeting held on 17.3.2020 vide office No. HO:9E-22/95(A)- dated 15th June (Annexure R-1/2), whereby Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, came to be authorized to adopt all notifications/ instructions issued by the State Government. Though at this stage, ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
-9- 2025:HHC:29190 learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that Managing .
Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, never adopted all notifications/instructions issued by the State Government and as such, same could not be made applicable for selection to the post of Conductor, which came to be initiated vide advertisement dated 19.11.2011, however, this Court is not persuaded to agree with him for the reason that once Board of Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, in its meeting held on 17.3.2020, had authorized the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, to adopt all the notifications/instructions issued by the government and thereafter on the requisition made by the respondent-Himachal Road Transport Corporation, respondent-commission proceeded to advertise 360 posts of Conductor, this court has reason to presume and believe that Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, after having adopted Rules 2019, had sent requisition for filling up 360 posts of Conductor.
12. Even if it is presumed that advertisement was not in conformity with the Recruitment & Promotion Rules (Annexure P-1), petitioner herein ought to have laid challenge to the same at the first instance i.e. immediately after publication of advertisement, however in the instant case, petitioner fully knowing that she is ineligible in terms of the eligibility criteria provided under the advertisement, firstly uploaded her application alongwith documents online and ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 10 - 2025:HHC:29190 thereafter, participated in the Written Objective Test, but later on, .
after rejection of her candidature, she approached this Court in the instant proceedings, which is wholly impermissible.
13. Though Mr. Surender Sharma, attempted to argue that once application submitted by the petitioner was accepted and she was permitted to participate in the Written Objective Test, there was no occasion, if any, for her to lay challenge to advertisement, but such plea deserves outright rejection for the reason that from day one, petitioner was fully aware that she is not eligible in terms of eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement, but yet she took chance and applied online.
14. As has been stated by the learned counsel for respondent-
Commission that initially application of the petitioner was accepted provisionally, but subsequently on verification of documents it came to be transpired that she is not eligible and as such, her candidature was rejected. No doubt, Recruitment & Promotion Rules qua the post in question provide for different eligibility criteria, but there is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner herein before making application in terms of advertisement (Annexure P-3) had an occasion to go through the Recruitment & Promotion Rules of the post in question, wherein qualification, which petitioner actually possesses, was prescribed, rather petitioner actually applied strictly in terms of advertisement, wherein it stood specifically provided that a candidate desirous of ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 11 - 2025:HHC:29190 applying to the post of Conductor either should have passed .
matriculation and 10+2 examination from any school/institution situate within the State of Himachal Pradesh or he/she should be Bonafide Himachali. Since petitioner has neither passed any of the examination nor she is Bonafide Himachali, there was otherwise no occasion for her to apply for the post.
15. Though at this stage, Mr. Surender Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, while making this Court peruse rules of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, attempted to argue that after scrutinizing the online recruitment applications category-
wise/post wise properly by the concerned Branch, the candidates fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria shall be admitted provisionally and the candidates not fulfilling the prescribed eligibility criteria shall be rejected, but such procedure, if any, was not followed by the respondent Commission, however afore plea may not be of much help to the petitioner for the reason that she was never eligible to participate in selection process pursuant to advertisement issued in that regard by the respondent-Commission. Though respondent-
Commission ought to have rejected the application at the first instance, but it appears that it escaped the notice of respondent-
Commission, but ultimately, at final stage, when documents were verified, candidature of the petitioner was rejected for the reasons as noticed herein above.
::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS- 12 - 2025:HHC:29190
16. As per reply filed by the respondents, only candidature of .
such candidates is rejected at the stage of scrutiny who have not deposited requisite fee in terms of advertisement, whereas in case of other applicants, document verification is done at later stage. Since in the case at hand, petitioner approached this Court after rejection of her candidature coupled with the fact that selection process stands concluded, she is otherwise estopped from filing petition at hand.
17. Reliance in this regard is placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Anupal Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 173, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.
56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 13 - 2025:HHC:29190 and Others v. State of J&K and Others (1995) 3 SCC 486, it was held as under:-
.
"9. ..... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a rcandidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted."
57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Others (2006) 6 SCC 395, it was held as under:-
"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper."
58. In Union of India and Others v. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others (2007) 8 SCC 100, it was held as under:-
"19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127, it was further observed:-
"34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 14 - 2025:HHC:29190 'palatable' to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there .
was some lacuna in the process."
59.Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo and Others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others (2008) 4 SCC 619 wherein, it was held as under:-
"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in r Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100 ......The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285, where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise."
60. Before the declaration of the result of the written examination on 15.09.2014, the State Government by its Government order dated 20.08.2014 revised the requisition thereby revising the number of vacancies in different categories. UP Public Service Commission issued Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 specifically mentioning the number of vacancies to be filled up in various categories in accordance with the requisition sent by the State Government. The said Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2014 published by UP Public Service Commission reads as under:-
"UPPSC INTERVIEW PROGRAMME ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 15 - 2025:HHC:29190 Month October/November/December, 2014 (24) OFFICE MEMORANDUM .
98. Post Subordinate Agricultural Service Class III (Provisional Asstt. Group C) Agricultural Deptt. U.P. Reservation October - 27, 28, 29, 30 November - 05, 2515 posts - Non-reserved 07, 10, 11, 12, 1882 posts - SC 13, 14, 15, 17, 201 posts - ST 18, 19, 20, 21 22, 2030 posts - OBC 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Pay Scale Rs.5200-20200/- December - 01, Grade Pay Rs.2400/- 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 08, 09, 10, Advertisement No.A-5/E- 11, 12, 15, 16, 1/2013 17, 18, 19, 20, r Last Date: 21.11.2013 22, 23, 24, 2014 Before 10.00 a.m. Dt. 12.10.2014".
It is thus clear that the candidates who appeared in the interview were well aware about the modification/revision in number of vacancies of Technical Assistants in different categories. The private respondents/intervening applicants have appeared in the interview with their eyes wide open regarding the modified vacancies to be filled up in various categories of the posts. Having appeared in the interview without any demur or protest, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the selection process on the ground that there was modification in the number of vacancies in different categories and they are estopped by the principle of estoppel from challenging the same.
61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 16 - 2025:HHC:29190 interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in .
the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors."
18. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (2023) 17 SCC 147, relevant paras whereof read as under:
"38. The next aspect of the matter which requires consideration is the contention of the writ petitioners to the effect that the entire selection process was vitiated as the eligibility criteria enshrined in the Advertisement Notice dated 5th May, 2008 was recast vide a corrigendum dated 12th June, 2009, without any justifiable reason. In order to consider this contention, regard may be had to the following case law:
38.1 In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court authoritatively declared that having participated in a selection process without any protest, it would not be open to an unsuccessful candidate to challenge the selection criteria subsequently.
38.2 In Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi, (2013) 11 SCC 309, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment for the post of physiotherapist. Candidates who failed to clear the written test presented a writ petition and prayed for quashing the advertisement and the process of ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 17 - 2025:HHC:29190 selection. They pleaded that the advertisement and the test were ultra vires the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Medical .
Health and Family Welfare Department Physiotherapist and Occupational Therapist Service Rules, 1998. After referring to a catena of judgments on the principle of waiver and estoppel, this Court did not entertain the challenge for the reason that the same would not be maintainable after participation in the selection process. The pertinent observations of this Court are as under:
"24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken rpart in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."
38.3 Similarly, in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2017) 4 SCC 357, a process was initiated for promotion to Class-III posts from amongst Class-IV employees of a civil court. In the said case, the selection was to be made on the basis of a written test and interview, for which 85% and 15% marks were earmarked respectively as per norms. Out of 27 (twenty-seven) candidates who appeared in the written examination, 14 (fourteen) qualified. They were interviewed. The committee selected candidates on the basis of merit and prepared a list. The High Court declined to approve the Select List on the ground that the ratio of full marks for the written examination and the interview ought to have been 90:10 and 45 ought to be the qualifying marks in the written examination. A fresh process followed comprising of a written examination (full marks - 90 and qualifying marks - 45) and an interview (carrying 10 marks). On ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 18 - 2025:HHC:29190 the basis of the performance of the candidates, results were declared and 6 (six) persons were appointed on Class-III posts.
.
It was thereafter that the appellants along with 4 (four) other unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of the High Court on the administrative side declining to approve the initial Select List. The primary ground was that the appointment process was vitiated, since under the relevant rules, the written test was required to carry 85 marks and the interview 15 marks. This Court dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the appellants were clearly put on notice when the fresh selection process took place that the written examination would carry 90 marks and the interview 10 marks. The Court was of the view that the appellants having participated in the selection process without objection and subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process at their instance was precluded. The relevant observations are as under:
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla, this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100, this Court held that:
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS
- 19 - 2025:HHC:29190 the same (See also Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368 and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service .
Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724)."
19. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein above as well as law taken into consideration, this Court finds no force in the present petition and accordingly, same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Interim direction, if any, stands vacated.
August 21, 2025 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit)
r Judge
::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2025 21:22:10 :::CIS