##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.20751 of 2025

Date of Decision: 30.12.2025

_____________________________________________________________________

Mehak Sharma ……...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. …....Respondents

Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, oJudge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhim R aj Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate

General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish

Buanshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for the

respondents No.1 to 3-State.

Mr. Vikrant Thakur, Advocate, for

respondent No.4.

___________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the

following main reliefs:-

“a. Direct the respondents to re-check the answers to Question

Nos.6, 13 and 37 of Series-B and revise the final result (Annexure P-4)

of the Female Police Constable Recruitment process qua the petitioner.

b. Direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for addition of

2.75 marks consequential selection, in the interest of justice.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been

highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Bhim Raj

Sharma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that petitioner

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 06:14:36 :::CIS

2

has not been wrongly awarded marks for attempting Question Nos. 6,

13, and 37 of Series-B.

3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the

pleadings, adduced on record by the petitioner are that respondent

No.2, vide Advertisement Notice No.25/10-2024 dated 04.10.2024,

issued an advertisement for the recruitment of 380 posts of Female

Constable in different districts and invited applications for the same.

Petitioner herein, being fully etligible, participated in the selection

process and qualified the physical tests for the post of Police Constable

(Female) held on 15.02.2025 at Police Lines, Jhalera, District Una,

Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner was called to appear in the written

examination scheduled on 15.06.2025. Though petitioner secured

65.50 marks, but was unable to secure place in the merit list on

account of the fact that cut-off for the unserved category was 68.25. As

per petitioner, difference of 2.75 marks is solely attributable to an

incorrect answer key.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid issue raised on behalf of

the petitioner, this Court specifically called upon Mr. Vikrant Thakur,

learned counsel for respondent No.4, to have instructions.

5. Pursuant to afore direction issued by this Court, Mr.

Thakur, learned counsel for respondent No.4, apprised this Court that

petitioner had submitted objections qua Question Nos.6, 13 and 37,

::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2026 06:14:36 :::CIS

3

which, along with objections raised by the other candidates, were

forwarded to the subject expert. He submitted that provisional answer

key was uploaded on the official website of the Commission on

17.06.2025 and objections were invited from candidates w.e.f

17.06.2025 to 22.06.2025. In total, 1200 objections were received from

the concerned candidates against 22 questions, which were forwarded

to the subject expert for his opinion, including the question challenged

by the petitioner. He submitted tthat out of three questions, objection

qua one question was found to be genuine and accordingly, the

petitioner as well as other similarly situate persons were awarded

marks qua the same, whereas objections qua other remaining two

questions were not found genuine, as such, petitioner herein was not

awarded any marks in respect thereof. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned

counsel for respondent No.4, submitted that this Court, in similar

facts and circumstances, has passed judgment dated 21.11.2025 in

CWP No.17697 of 2025, titled as Veeku Vs. State of H.P and Others,

wherein prayer for re-evaluation of Question No.83 was made and this

Court, having taken note of instructions dated 20.11.2025 issued by

H.P. Public Service Commission, pr