IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 735 of 2011 Date of decision: 27.8.2011 Gauri Pratap Shankar …..Petitioner Versus Secretary, H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur. ….. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate. _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J(Oral). The petitioner, by means of this petition, has challenged the process of selection, whereby recruitment to the posts of Clerks was made by the H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Hamirpur (in short, the ‘respondent-Board’). 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that key answers to 12 questions were not correct. On 22nd March, 2011, a Division Bench of this Court issued a direction to the respondent-Board to refer the disputed questions to a panel of three fresh experts other than the paper-setters to obtain their opinion. Three fresh experts were appointed and the key answers were again worked out and certain corrections were carried out in the same. Thereafter, on 17th May, 2011, another direction was issued to the respondent-Board to review the select list in terms of the fresh key answers submitted by the experts pursuant to the order dated 22nd March, 2011. The respondent-Board was also directed to inform the Court about the impact thereof and the names of the candidates, who are likely to be affected. The respondent-Board filed an affidavit wherein it was stated that 2 three persons, namely, Ravi Kant, Sanjay Sagar and Amit Kumar, who were in the previous select list, would go out of the merit list after re- drawing the same and three persons, namely, Sanjeev Kumar (Roll No. 73958), Sanjeev Kumar (Roll No. 77177) and one Rachna Devi (Roll No. 88453) would now fall within the merit list after re-drawing the same. The petitioner does not fall in the merit list whether the previous key answers are taken into consideration or the revised key answers are taken into consideration. 3. As far as the grievance of the petitioner with the grant of marking to the personal interview is concerned, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the marking done by the selection Board. Since the petitioner will not come within the merit list, whichever list is followed, no fruitful purpose would be served in pursuing this petition. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. August, 27, 2011 (pankaj)