ORDER :

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

“(i) That the applicant be awarded one marks each in question no.64, 90 and 104 respectively.

(ii) That in the alternative the applicant be considered for the post of Junior Draftsman (Civil).

(iii) That the entire process for selections of Junior Draftsman (Civil) may kindly be set-aside.”

2. The Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur, (for short ‘Board’) invited applications for the post of Junior Draughtsman (Civil) for which examination was held on 5th July, 2015. The petitioner obtained 143 marks whereas the last selected candidate obtained 144 marks. Meaning thereby, the petitioner fell short of only one mark in the selection. After declaration of the result, the petitioner registered his objections with the Board relating to Question Nos. 10, 32, 64, 90, 104 and 159. The Board, in turn, got these questions vetted by the Expert Panel and the same was made available to the petitioner.

3. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that some of the questions, more particularly, question numbers 64,90 and 104, as answered by the Experts, are still incorrect, hence, this petition.

4. What would be the scope of judicial review in the given facts and circumstances of the case has recently been considered by this Bench in CWP No. 4999 of 2021, titled Upanshu Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and connected matter, wherein it was observed as under:-

“12. The powers of this Court to have opinion different to that of the experts, in the matter of evaluation of answers in competitive examination, is well defined. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27, wherein it has held as under:

“29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.”

13. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 SCC 759, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we