Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
MEHAK SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
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 Shaorma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhim Raj Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate
General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish
uBanshtu, 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 fur
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Point of Law : Law that compassion sympathy or claim on basis of assessment cannot be permitted as entire examination process is derailed because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or p....
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
The court established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.
The court established that discrepancies in examination marking must be addressed fairly for all candidates, emphasizing the importance of accurate answer keys in recruitment processes.
Point of Law : if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-ev....
Courts should be slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters and assessment of questions by the courts to arrive at correct answers is not permissible.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
