##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

LPA No. 306 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.09.2026 Ishan Dogra …Appellant Versus State of H. P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G. S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chirag Bhanu Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant: Mr. Vinod Sharma and Ms. Mamta Kumari, Advocates.

For the Respondents: Mr. Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 4.

Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

G. S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral)

The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No. 14813 of 2024, titled as Ishan Dogra vs. State of H.P. & Ors., dated 18.12.2024, by the unsuccessful writ petitioner, wherein the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that he had not disclosed in the writ petition that he had applied for the post on the strength of another certificate issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education and that he had appeared in the improvement examination and, therefore, he had not come to the Court with clean hands. It was accordingly held that the detailed mark sheet submitted, when he applied for the post had lesser marks as compared to the selected candidate and in such circumstances, the cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed, while dismissing the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the selection was for the post of ‘Van Mitra’ in Mashnoo beat and to offer appointment to him being topper, as it was the case of the petitioner that he had secured 81.1% marks and the private respondent had secured 79% marks and, therefore, he was higher in merit and should have been selected.

3. The case of the respondents was that when the petitioner had applied, he had submitted a certificate dated 22.04.2019 issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, wherein he had secured 390 marks out of 500 marks. However, when he participated in the counselling, he had produced another digitized copy of the certificate issued to him by the same Board, dated 27.06.2019, in which he had secured 409 marks out of 500 marks. Resultantly, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that he had not applied on the strength of the second certificate, in which he had got higher marks and accordingly upheld the selection as such of the private respondent.

4. We have perused the record as such from the original writ file and found that on the basis of the record as such, the learned Single Judge has decided the case without any specific pleading to this extent by the respondents who had not filed reply, thus, the issue could not be crystalized and also the fact that the petitioner could have amended his writ petition by incorporating the plea that the re-valuation marks could have also been taken into consideration.

5. We are further fortified by the position of law that where the marks have been improved in re-valuation, it could relate back to the date of the earlier examination. Reliance can be placed upon the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Nidhi Sharma vs. Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar and Ors., 2004 (4) SCT 468.

6. While sitting in the Division Bench in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, one of us (Justice G. S. Sandhawalia) also delivered a similar judgment in LPA No. 552 of 2021, titled as Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Sharma & Ors., on 01.12.2021 and also noticed the fact that there was another judgment passed in CWP No. 23896 of 2012, titled as Preeti Gulia vs. State of Haryana and Anr., decided on 10.01.2013, wherein, it was also held that an improvement of a score relates back to the date on which the qualification was acquired.

7. Reliance upon the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE, 2004 (4) SCT 546 can also be made, wherein, a three-Judge Bench has held that the eligibility qualification has t