Vandana Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

For the petitioner: Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶10

Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

¶11

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral )

¶12

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

¶13

alia , prayed for the following relief:-

¶14

“(i) T hat the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued by directing the respondent to grant the benefits of chapter 2 Clause 10.5 of advertisement dated 20.12.2005 wherein there is provision of relaxation of 5% in minimum qualifying marks for HP SMC-LDR, TEST 2025-26 to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PWD categories of Himachal Pradesh strictly as per R&P Rules for relevant posts. Further, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare qualified the petitioner in the written exam for the post of TGT (NM) and offer him appointment against the post of TGT (NM) from the due date with all consequential benefits as per advertisement dated 20.12.20205.”

¶15

2

¶16

The petitioner has participated in the process which

¶17

was initiated by the respondents vide advertisement dated 20.12.2025, Annexure P-7, for Limited Direct Recruitment against various posts mentioned therein. Amongst the posts, which were advertised, in terms of said advertisement, the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) were also there. These posts were hundred in number. As per the advertisement, the essential qualifications for Trained Graduate Teacher (Non-Medical) were as under:-

¶18

“B.Sc. (Non-Medical)/ Post Graduation [M.Sc in any science discipline provided that the candidates should have passed their Graduation Degree in B.Sc. (NM)] from a recognized University with at least 50% marks either in B.Sc. (Non-Medical) or in PostGraduation and 1 Year's Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.)/ 2 Year's Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) from National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) recognized institution.

¶19

OR

¶20

Post-Graduation [M.Sc in any Science discipline provided that candidates should have passed their Graduation Degree in B.Sc. (NM)) with a minimum 55% marks and three-year integrated B.Ed. M.Ed. from National Council for Tearn Education (NCTE) recognized institution.

¶21

OR

¶22

Senior Secondary/10+2 In Science (Non-Medical) with at least 50% marks and 4 year's Bachelor in Elementary Education (B.El.Ed).

¶23

OR

¶24

3

¶25

Senior Secondary/10+2 in Science (Non-Medical) with at least 50% marks and 4 years B.Sc. (NonMedical) (Edu)/B.Sc. (Non-Medical) B.Ed.

¶26

OR

¶27

B.Sc. (Non-Medical) with at least 50% marks and 1 years Bachelor in Education (B.Ed.) (Special Education).

¶28

AND

¶29

Pass in the HP Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) duly conducted by H.P. Board of School Education Dharmshala, Distt. Kangra or any other Agency authorized by the Government.

¶30

b) Desirable Qualifications: Knowledge of customs, manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions prevailing in the state.

¶31

NOTE (i): -Provided that minimum percentage of marks in graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education prior to the 24th July 2011.

¶32

NOTE (ii): -Relaxation upto 5% will be allowed in minimum educational qualifications and also in minimum qualifying marks for TET to the candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PWD categories of H.P. NOTE (iii): The minimum qualification as prescribed by NCTE on the date of publication of the Advertisement shall be considered as part and parcel of these R&P Rules and the Government (in the Department of Elementary Education, H.P) shall provide such changes in the minimum essential qualification to the recruiting agency till the date of publication of the advertisement.

¶33

NOTE (iv): - In case of candidates who have taken admission in B.Ed. course on the basis of M.A./M.Sc. with at least 50% marks shall only be considered for the post of TGT.

¶34

Provided that a candidate must have passed Matriculation, and 10+2 from any School/Institution situated within Himachal Pradesh Provided this condition shall not apply to Bonafide Himachalis.”

¶35

4

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner primarily is that in terms of Clause 10.5, there is a provision qua relaxation upto 5% in minimum educational qualification and also in minimum qualifying marks for certain categories, including the category of OBC, but, the benefit of the same has not been given to the petitioner. It is in this backdrop, that the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the relief enumerated hereinabove.

¶37

In this backdrop, when the case was listed on 28.04.2026, the following order was passed:-

¶38

“Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General and Ms. Neelam Kaplas, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2 and respondent No.3, respectively.

¶39

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the advertisement, inter alia, relaxation up to 5% was provided for candidates belonging SC/ST/OBC etc. categories and according to the petitioner, as she belongs to the OBC category, the said relaxation has not been granted to her as far as minimum qualifying marks are concerned.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents to have instructions on this issue by the next date of hearing. List on 19.05.2026.”

¶41

5

¶42

Today, both learned Additional Advocate General as

¶43

well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board have handed over instructions received, which are taken on record.

¶44

In terms of these instructions, the contention of the petitioner that she has not been given the benefit of relaxation is mentioned to be completely incorrect. The Court stands informed that the screening of the candidates was by way of a multiple choice test of 200 marks. The passing marks were fixed at 45% for General Category and after giving relaxation of 5% in terms of relaxation Clause 10.5, they were fixed at 40% for SC/ST/OBC and PWD categories.

¶45

The Court further stands informed that the minimum 40% out of 200 comes to 80 as far as categories like SC/ST/OBC and PWD are concerned and as the petitioner herein obtained 71 marks out of 200, which is about to 35.5% marks, therefore, as she was not able to secure the minimum of 40%, her candidature has been rejected.

¶46

6

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in

¶48

similar process undertaken by respondent No.2, it had fixed the minimum qualifying marks for OBC category as 35% and thus, the rejection of the candidate of the petitioner is bad.

¶49

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the pleadings on record as well as the documents appended therewith.

¶50

This Court is of the considered view that there is no

¶51

merit in the present petition. In this petition, there is no challenge to Annexure P-7 by the petitioner, assailing the qualifying marks/passing criteria, which is mentioned in the said advertisement as Clause-12. This Clause of the advertisement

¶52

i.e., the Clause dealing with qualifying marks/passing criteria, reads as under:-

¶53

“There shall be one question paper in four different

¶54

series having questions of multiple-choice/objective type, carrying 200 questions of one mark each to be attempted within 120 minutes.

¶55

Therefore, passing criteria will be as under:-

¶56

Sr. No.	Category/sub	Passing	Passing marks
	category	percentage	out of 200

¶57

7

¶58

1.	Un Reserved & EWS	45%	90
2.	SC/ST/OBC & PHH including UR	40%	80”

¶59

A perusal of Clause-12 demonstrates that in terms thereof, there was one question paper carrying 200 questions of one mark each, which was to be attempted by the candidates within 120 minutes. The passing criteria as mentioned therein was 45% for Un-reserved & EWS and 40% for SC/ST/OBC & PHH including UR. Passing marks were mentioned as 90 out of 200 for Un-reserved and & EWS categories and 80 for SC/ST/OBC & PHH categories.

¶60

In the backdrop of the fact that the petitioner secured only 71 marks out of 200, her candidature stands rightly rejected by the authorities. The contention of the petitioner that the benefit of 5% relaxation has not been given to her is completely misconceived. The benefit of the relaxation of 5% has been given to the OBC category and it is only as a result thereof that the passing percentage for the said categories was fixed as 40% as against 45% in the case of General Category. Unfortunately, the petitioner was not able to

¶61

8

¶62

obtain, even the qualifying marks mentioned in the

¶63

advertisement Annexure P-7 and it is on this count that her candidature has been rejected and not because of the fact that

¶64

she was not given the benefit of relaxation of 5% marks.

¶65