CWP No.2226 of 2008 with CWPs No.2293, 2418, 2585, 2586 and 2634 of 2008. CWP No.2226 of 2008. 04.12.2008 Present: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocates, for the respondent. CWP No.2293 of 2008. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocates, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3. CWP No.2418 of 2008. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocates, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No.3. CWPs No.2585, 2586 and 2634 of 2008. Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s), Mr. Shrawan Dogra and Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocates, for the respondent. There are six writ petitions and eight petitioners are there. These writ petitions have identical/similar facts and common question of law has been urged. Therefore, all these six writ petitions are being considered and disposed of by a common order. Certain discrepancies have been indicated on behalf of the petitioners with respect to the answer keys of the preliminary examination to Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services etc. We appreciate the fairness on behalf of the learned Counsel appearing for the HP Public -2- Service Commission who admitted that there appears to be certain discrepancies in number of subjects, i.e. General Studies, Public Administration, Indian History, Botany and Sociology and they would like to have certain further in-house examination of the key answers with respect to the complained subjects. Further it has been proposed by S/Shri Shrawan Dogra and D.K. Khanna that the candidates who have already been declared passed would be allowed to appear in the written examination. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, namely, S/Shri Subhash Sharma, Ashwani Pathak, Bhuvnesh Sharma, Ramakant Sharma and Neeraj K. Sharma, agree with this proposal given by S/Shri Shrawan Dogra and D.K. Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the Commission. We appreciate that if there is a discrepancy it has to be removed. Therefore, let in-house process be taken place as suggested by the learned Counsel for the Commission. It has further been informed by the learned Counsel for the Commission that necessary steps would be taken to allow identical placed candidates to participate in the aforesaid process. In the light of the above, it would be open for the Commission to re-schedule the written examination which is scheduled from 6th December, 2008. However, we direct that the matter shall not be delayed and be completed expeditiously. The parties agree that the in-house process would be binding upon the parties before this Court. With these observations and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, all the petitions are disposed of, so also other pending applications. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. December 04, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (tr)