JUDGMENT : L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J. 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has made a prayer that respondent No. 1-Staff Selection Commission (for short ‘Commission’) may be directed to recommend his name to respondent No. 2-State for appointment against the post of Clerk. 2. The facts leading to the present case are that respondent-Commission invited online applications for recruitment of 156 posts of Clerk in H.P. Secretariat, against Post Code-692, vide Advertisement No. 34-1/2018 (Annexure P-1). The last date for submission of Online Recruitment Application was 04.8.2018. In pursuance to the Notification issued by the respondent-Commission, the petitioner submitted his Online Application on 30th July, 2018 under the Scheduled Caste Category, Sub-Category “Unreserved.” Thereafter, on 28th October, 2018, the petitioner received SMS on his registered Mobile No. 7018277150, by which he was informed that he had been admitted provisionally with Application Form No. 1226154 to appear in the written test for the aforesaid post under Roll No. 692031855 in Examination Centre Government Senior Secondary School (Boys), Rohroo, District Shimla (HP) scheduled for 04.11.2018. The screenshot print of the SMS is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3. It is further submitted that the petitioner downloaded Admit Card (Annexure P-4) and appeared in the written objective test on the aforesaid date against Roll No. 692031855. In the Examination Centre, the petitioner signed on an attendance sheet against the aforesaid Roll Number, which also contained his photograph. He also wrote his name in his own handwriting on Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheet issued to him and put his signatures on the same in the box meant for “Signature of the Candidate.” But, unfortunately, he could not retain carbon copy of the OMR sheet. The result of the written test was declared on 11.01.2019 (Annexure P-5), in which the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 555. In Annexure P-5, his name and his father's name had been correctly recorded. The respondent-Commission released a Press Note (Annexure P-6) on 16.05.2019, in which the Roll Number of the petitioner has been shown as 692031855 with 58.88 total marks secured. When such being the case, it is presumed that the petitioner has qualified the test to the post of Clerk. 3. The respondent-Commission released a Press Note (Annexure P-6) on 16.05.2019, in which the Roll Number of the petitioner has been shown as 692031855 with 58.88 total marks secured. When such being the case, it is presumed that the petitioner has qualified the test to the post of Clerk. 3. The petitioner was called for Evaluation Test vide Annexure P-7, in which his name figured at S. No. 145 and his Application Number has been shown as 1126145, where his name and his father's name have also been correctly recorded and his Roll Number has been shown as 692031855. He was directed to appear in Evaluation Test on 11.06.2019. On evaluating the candidature of all the persons, including the petitioner, further Press Note dated 23.07.2019 (Annexure P-8) was released, in which the petitioner's name has been shown at Sr. No. 48 and the total marks secured by him have been shown as 58.88. The particulars of the petitioner were correctly recorded therein. Thereafter, on 24.07.2019, the respondent-Commission issued another Selection List (Annexure P-9), in which the petitioner was shown at S. No. 132 and his Roll Number was correctly reflected with his correct particulars such as date of birth, category, sub-category, marks obtained etc. 4. Thereafter, Press Note dated 23rd July, 2019, (Annexure P-10) was released by the Selection Commission, in which against Roll No. 692031855, the name of one Vivek has been shown instead of name of the petitioner, i.e. Vivek Kumar, and the total marks, i.e. 58.88 scored by the petitioner, have been shown to have been scored by said Vivek. The respondent-Commission published ‘the Roll Number Wise Result of the Candidates for the Post of Clerk, Post Code-692’ vide Annexure P-11 and against Roll No. 692031855, the name of respondent No. 3-Vivek has been shown under the category ‘General’ and date of birth of the petitioner has also been altered. 5. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that till the publication of the result, the petitioner's name was correctly shown with his correct particulars, but vide Annexure P-10, the name of the private respondent has been shown in place of the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned action of the respondent-Commission is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the impugned action of the respondent-Commission is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He prays that the appointment of respondent No. 3 may be quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent-Commission to recommend the name of the petitioner to respondent-State and further a direction may be issued to the respondent-State to appoint the petitioner to the post of Clerk. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission filed reply and denied the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is submitted by the Commission that the petitioner has committed fraud and misrepresented the facts before this Court and has not approached this Court with clean hands. On this ground alone, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. It is stated that the petitioner appeared in the written test and his Roll Number was not as is mentioned in the writ petition i.e. 692031855. On the other hand, his Roll Number was 692047827, whereas the Roll Number of the private respondent was 692031855. He further submits that along with the application, the candidates had to furnish their Mobile Numbers for the purpose of SMS. In the instant case, the SMS which was produced by the petitioner was not forwarded by the respondent-Commission and the screenshot of the SMS, produced on record by the petitioner, has been forged to mislead this Court. It is stated to be a fabrication and misrepresentation of facts before this Court. The Mobile Number, which was furnished by the petitioner against Roll Number 692031855, is incorrect and the SMS was forwarded by the respondent-Commission to the private respondent as he had submitted his correct mobile number. Though, the petitioner had appeared in the written test, but he could not pass since he has secured very less marks. He could not produce a copy of the OMR sheet which was supposed to be retained by the candidates. The private respondent has produced a copy of the Admission Ticket sent to him by the Commission through registered A.D. whereas on the other hand, the petitioner has failed to do so. The learned Counsel prays that on these grounds, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The private respondent has produced a copy of the Admission Ticket sent to him by the Commission through registered A.D. whereas on the other hand, the petitioner has failed to do so. The learned Counsel prays that on these grounds, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The learned Counsel for the private respondent has also filed the reply, in which he submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has made an attempt to make a false claim. He further submitted that on this ground, the petition is liable to be rejected. It is further submitted that the Roll Number and Application Number of the private respondent were 692031855 and 1426300, respectively. The Commission issued Admit Card to the private respondent to appear in the Typing Skill Test. He has produced the same on record which is annexed as Annexure R-3/3 with the reply. He was also called through registered AD to appear in the Evaluation Test and copy of the Admit Card to appear in the Evaluation Test is Annexure R-3/4. 9. On the other hand, the petitioner has failed to produce on record either Admit Card to appear in the Typing Skill Test or Admit Card to appear in the Evaluation Test, since he did not appear in both the tests. The learned Counsel further submitted that it is the private respondent and not the petitioner, who secured 4.38 marks out of 15 marks in the evaluation test and 54.50 marks in the Written Objective Type Screening Test out of 85, total 58.88 marks. The marks secured by the private respondent have been fabricated claiming as if the said marks were secured by the petitioner, which is an afterthought. 10. To strengthen his case, learned Counsel for the private respondent contended that since the private respondent has secured 75.23% marks in the graduation, he has been awarded 1.88 marks, i.e. 75.23 x 0.025 and as the petitioner has secured only 59.3 % marks in the graduation, he is entitled to get 1.4825 marks i.e. 59.3 x 0.025, as per the criteria stipulated in the Notification issued by the Government. In any case, the petitioner cannot get 4.38 marks in the Evaluation Test for the reason that each question carries 0.50 marks and the marks to be awarded under other heads carries either 1 or 2 marks. In any case, the petitioner cannot get 4.38 marks in the Evaluation Test for the reason that each question carries 0.50 marks and the marks to be awarded under other heads carries either 1 or 2 marks. It is further contended that if a person has experience in serving any Government/Semi Government Organization relating to the post applied for, he is entitled to get 0.5 mark for one year and maximum 2.5 marks can be awarded. He further submits that in case, 1.4825 marks are added either in 1 or 0.50 marks, the total would be either 2.9825 or 2.48. The petitioner would not have secured 4.38 marks in Evaluation Test either it can be 4.98 or 4.48, if he has secured 3.50 marks or 3.00 marks under other criteria. Since the private respondent has been awarded 1.88 marks for his qualification of Graduation and further 2.50 marks in respect of backward area, family having land less than 1 hectare and further experience of serving as Clerk in the Bank, the total marks awarded to him would be 4.38 in the Evaluation Test. Thus, it was only the private respondent who was allotted Roll No. 692031855. Thus, the learned Counsel prays to dismiss this writ petition. 11. The petitioner has filed rejoinder and it is his case that the screenshot taken on 28.10.2018 and also the Admission Tickets cannot be fabricated or forged. Hence, it falsifies the case of the respondents. Accordingly it is his case that the petition is to be allowed. 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 13. The petitioner claims his case for consideration under the category of under the Scheduled Caste Category, Sub-Category “Unreserved.” It is also his case that his Roll Number was 692031855 and he has been called for more than three occasions to appear in Written Test, Typing Skill Test and Evaluation Test and his name has been shown by the respondent-Commission as a successful candidate. It is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the rejoinder as to why he could not produce either copies of Admission Tickets to appear in the Typing Skill Test and the Evaluation Test or OMR sheet before the Court. It is not forthcoming from the pleadings of the petitioner as well as the rejoinder as to why he could not produce either copies of Admission Tickets to appear in the Typing Skill Test and the Evaluation Test or OMR sheet before the Court. If it is his case that he appeared and lost the same, he could have made an application before the Commission for issuing the duplicate copies of the same, but he did not do so. The selection of the private respondent and rejecting the claim of the petitioner has been fortified by the Commission as well as the State. 14. While dealing with a case of this nature, the High Court may not be in a position to investigate a matter like an Investigating Agency. In case a person makes allegation that a fraud or forgery etc. is committed in the Selection Process etc. it is for him to approach the Competent Authority/Appropriate Forum. 15. Since the Commission did not find any irregularity in respect of selecting the private respondent and the petitioner did not make an application making allegations against the private respondent and requesting to look into the matter, it did not investigate the matter. 16. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has failed to make out a case in his favour. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the Selection Commission as well as the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority to get the matter investigated, in case they still feel aggrieved. Respondent No. 2 is directed to consider the case of the private respondent and pass appropriate order, in the light of the observations, made hereinabove, within three weeks from today. Seniority list be drawn by the Commission as per the Rules applicable. 17. In case, the petitioner approaches the Investigating Agency by way of filing a case or a complaint, the observations made hereinabove, shall not come in the way, to carry out proper and fair investigation. 18. The writ petition is dismissed as indicated hereinabove alongwith pending applications, if any.