IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.4310 of 2009 with CWP Nos.4349, 4361, 4344, 4497, 4539, 4541, 4202, 4554, 4555 and 4556 of 2009. Decided on: 4.12.2009. 1. CWP No.4310 of 2009: Nishant Thakur. ..…..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 2. CWP No.4349 of 2009: Vinod Singh. ..…..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 3. CWP No.4361 of 2009: Javed Ali. ..…..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 4. CWP No.4344 of 2009: Bharat Bhushan. ..…..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 5. CWP No.4497 of 2009: Sanjeev Atri. ..…..Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 6. CWP No.4539 of 2009: Abhimanyu Verma & Another. ..…..Petitioners. Versus H.P. Public Service Commission. ….…. Respondent. …2… 7. CWP No.4541 of 2009: Uma Shankar & Others. ..…..Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 8. CWP No.4202 of 2009: Deep Singh & Others. ..…..Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & Another. ….…. Respondents. 9. CWP No.4554 of 2009: Anuj Sharma. ..…..Petitioner. Versus H.P. Public Service Commission. ….…. Respondent. 10. CWP No.4555 of 2009: Surender Singh. ..…..Petitioner. Versus H.P. Public Service Commission. ….…. Respondent. 11. CWP No.4556 of 2009: MunishSharma. ..…..Petitioner. Versus H.P. Public Service Commission. ….…. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, ACJ. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. Surender Sharma, Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Mr. T.S. Chauhan, Mr. Javed Khan, Mr. Imran Khan, Mr. Vikas Rajput, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Mr. Rajinder Thakur and Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocates. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …3… For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General for the respondent-State in all the petitions. Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocates for the H.P. Public Service Commission in all the petitions. Mr. Prem Singh Draik, Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission is also present in person. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, the same have been taken up together for hearing with the consent of parties at the admission stage and are being disposed of by a common order. The material facts necessary for adjudication of these petitions are that the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission has conducted Himachal Administrative Service etc. (Combined Competitive) (Preliminary) Examination on 5th July, 2009, result whereof was declared on 30th October, 2009. Petitioners also sat in the examination. The Public Service Commission has displayed the key answers on the notice board. The petitioners and similarly situated persons have made representations to the Public Service Commission with a common grievance that the key answers supplied by the Examiner were wrong. The dispute primarily raised by the petitioners is qua three subjects, i.e. Physics, Geography and Political Science. We had called upon Mr. D.K. Khanna to ensure the presence of the Secretary of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission for today. Mr. Prem Singh Draik, Secretary is present in the Court. We have an interactive session with Mr. Draik. Mr. Draik submits that the matter can be re-examined by referring the matter to three …4… separate Committees of Experts subject-wise to redress the grievance of the petitioners. Accordingly, we direct the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission to constitute three separate Committees of Experts subject- wise, i.e. Physics, Geography and Political Science within a period of one week from today. The Committees of Experts shall deliberate and look into the representations and material attached with the representations and furnish the reports to the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission subject-wise. This exercise shall be completed by the members of the Committees of Experts within seven days after its constitution. This judgment shall cover all the candidates who have filed the writ petitions by 2.00 p.m. today. Thereafter no petition shall be entertained to give quietus to the matter. This judgment has been passed with the consent of parties to maintain transparency and purity in the selection process of the premier service in the State of Himachal Pradesh. We further direct the Public Service Commission to publish the result immediately after the receipt of the reports. The result shall apply to all the candidates uniformly. However, by way of abundant precaution it is made clear that the candidates who have already been declared pass, their result shall not be altered and they shall be permitted to sit in the final examination. In view of the observations made hereinabove, all the petitions are disposed of. All the pending applications are also disposed of. No costs. (R.B. Misra), ACJ. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 4, 2009. (sck)