Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India], October 10 : The Himachal Pradesh High Court has sought clarification from the state government and the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (HPPSC) over a rift regarding the inclusion of 139 additional unadvertised posts in the ongoing female police constable recruitment.
In an order dated October 6, Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted a prima facie discrepancy between the positions of the state government and the HPPSC on filling these unadvertised vacancies through the existing selection process. The ruling came during the hearing of Priyanka Sharma vs State of Himachal Pradesh alongside three connected petitions.
The legal challenge stems from the recruitment drive initiated on October 4, 2024 under an advertisement which originally invited applications for 380 female police constable positions. Following physical tests and a written exam conducted by the HPPSC, a selection list of around 800 candidates was prepared. However, the subsequent addition of 139 unadvertised posts and alleged procedural lapses in handling the reservation roster triggered court action.
The primary petitioner, 25-year-old Priyanka Sharma of Shimla district, alleged severe irregularities after being bypassed despite securing 63.50 marks in the EWS category. According to the petition, Sharma was called for document verification on July 3, 2026, but the process was postponed without explanation. 
Later, candidates scoring lower marks (between 62.50 and 63.25) were allegedly called for verification, medical examinations, and dope tests through district-level communications, while higher-merit candidates were excluded.
Challenging her omission under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Sharma and other petitioners argue that filling unadvertised posts and operating revised merit lists without transparency violates recruitment rules and fundamental rights.
Taking note of the conflicting stances between the government and the HPPSC, the High Court directed counsel for both sides to obtain fresh instructions. Advocate Ravneet Kumar, alongside advocates Bhim Raj Sharma and Ram Gopal, appeared for the petitioners, while Deputy Advocate General Sikander Bhushan represented the state. Senior Advocate Vikrant Thakur and Advocate Vishal Singh Thakur represented the HPPSC.
The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on October 13, 2026, when both authorities are expected to clarify their positions and produce category-wise merit records.