Improved Marks In Revaluation Relate Back To Date Of Original Qualification & Must Be Considered In Merit: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Background Facts

The appellant had applied for the post of 'Van Mitra'. He had submitted a certificate dated 22.04.2019 issued by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education, wherein he secured 390 marks out of 500 marks. However, when he participated in counselling, he produced another digitized certificate dated 27.06.2019 issued by the same Board, in which he secured 409 marks out of 500 marks. His application was rejected by the respondent. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition.

His writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge on the ground that he had not disclosed that he had applied on the strength of another certificate. Further that he had appeared in the improvement examination, and therefore he had not come to the Court with clean hands.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed an appeal against the Single judge order.

It was argued by the appellant that the selection was for the post of 'Van Mitra' and he being the topper with 81.1% marks, while the private respondent had secured 79% marks, he was higher in merit and should have been selected.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that when the appellant had applied, he had submitted a certificate dated 22.04.2019 wherein he secured 390 marks out of 500 marks, but when he participated in counselling, he produced another digitized certificate dated 27.06.2019 in which he secured 409 marks out of 500 marks.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed by the Division Bench that the appellant could have amended his writ petition by incorporating the plea that re-valuation marks could also have been taken into consideration. Reliance was placed upon the judgment in Nidhi Sharma vs. Guru Nanak Dev University wherein it was held that where marks have been improved in re-valuation, it could relate back to the date of the earlier examination.

Further in Preeti Gulia vs. State of Haryana and Anr., it was also held that an improvement of a score relates back to the date on which the qualification was acquired. The case of Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE was also relied upon wherein it was held that eligibility qualification has to be seen on the last date fixed for production of documents and there can be some relaxation in submission of proof.

It was held by the Division Bench that both certificates were issued by the same Board and there was no doubt regarding the veracity of the second certificate. It was observed that the earlier certificate had been relied upon at the time of the cut off date. It was observed that the authorities missed this aspect and did not consider the second certificate, which led to the selection of private respondent.

Therefore, it was directed by the court that the appellant should be considered for appointment against one of the two vacant posts. It was further observed that he shall not be entitled to any benefit of seniority and service benefits will accrue only from the date of issuance of appointment order.

With the aforesaid observations, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Ishan Dogra vs. State of H.P. & Ors.

Case No. : LPA No. 306 of 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Vinod Sharma and Mamta Kumari, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents : Gobind Korla, Additional Advocate General, Vinay Mehta, Advocate