JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: ?(i) That appropriate writ order or direction may very kindly be issued directing the respondent to amend the syllabus by providing equal opportunities to all the three streams which are eligible for the post i.e., Scientific Officer in H.P. State Pollution Control Board under the Department of Environment Science and Technology, by providing equal marks for the written screening test for Chemistry, Environment Science and Microbiology, in the interest of law and justice. (ii) Entire record pertaining to the case may very kindly be summoned from the respondent. (iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may very kindly be also passed in favour of the petitioner.? 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of present petition are as under:- Vide Advertisement No. 3/2019, dated 21st February, 2019 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 1 invited applications from eligible candidates for filling up various posts in different Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government. This included the post of Scientific Officer, Class-I (Contract Basis) in Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board under the Department of Environment Science and Technology. As per Advertisement, the candidate was to possess requisite essential qualification prescribed for the post for which he/she intended to apply as on closing date, i.e., 13th March, 2019 for submission of Online Recruitment Applications on the Website of respondent No. 1. The number of posts of Scientific Officer, Class-1, which were advertised vide Advertisement (Annexure A-1) were four and these were all un-reserved posts. The posts were advertised in the Pay Band of Rs.10,300-34800/-+Rs.5400/- Grade Pay. The essential qualification for the post in issue was as under: ?(a) Essential Qualification: 1st Class M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry/Environmental Science/Micro-Biology with a Bachelor's Degree in Basic Science from a recognized university/institution as a regular student or Bachelor Degree in Chemical Engineering or Bio-Chemical Engineering. (b) Desirable Qualification: Knowledge of customs/manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions, prevailing in Himachal Pradesh.? As per the petitioner, as she was eligible for the post in issue, she applied for the same. (b) Desirable Qualification: Knowledge of customs/manners and dialects of Himachal Pradesh and suitability for appointment in the peculiar conditions, prevailing in Himachal Pradesh.? As per the petitioner, as she was eligible for the post in issue, she applied for the same. According to her, neither in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post in issue, which stand appended with the petition as Annexure P-2 nor in the Advertisement there was any mention with respect to the pattern and syllabus for the written screening test. In this background, the petitioner first made inquiries from the employer, but she was referred to respondent No. 1 and accordingly, she kept on making inquiries as to what would be the syllabus of the written screening test from respondent No. 1. According to her, right from the month of March, 2019 onwards, she was intimated by respondent No. 1 that they were consulting with Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and it is the employer, who would finalize the syllabus and thereafter, the same would be made known to the eligible candidates. However, as per the petitioner, no intimation with respect to the syllabus was given up to the month of June, 2019 and thereafter, she stopped making inquiries in this regard. According to her, respondent No. 1 uploaded the syllabus for the post in issue on its Website somewhere either in the end of the month of June, 2019 or in the month of July, 2019, which came to the notice of the petitioner in the month of August, 2019. After perusing the syllabus, which stands appended with the petition as Annexure P-3, she found that the screening test was to be of 100 marks, out of which, there were to be multiple choice questions of 80 marks, for which syllabus was given. Besides this, 10 questions were to be about General Knowledge of Himachal Pradesh and 10 questions were to be about National/International affairs. Petitioner was astonished and surprised to see that the syllabus of 80 marks predominantly consisted of Chemistry Stream, despite the fact that persons who were possessing 1st Division in M.Sc. Environment Science/Microbiology were eligible for the post in issue. According to the petitioner, the syllabus settled for the purpose of Screening Test from Chemistry stream, was to benefit the candidates who had done M.Sc. Environment Science/Microbiology were eligible for the post in issue. According to the petitioner, the syllabus settled for the purpose of Screening Test from Chemistry stream, was to benefit the candidates who had done M.Sc. in Chemistry, whereas according to her, the syllabus should have been equal from all the three streams, i.e., Chemistry, Environment Science and Microbiology. She made a representation to the respondents on 27th September, 2019 (Annexure P-4), but without paying any heed to her representation, the respondents declared the date of Screening Test vide Press Note dated 1st October, 2019 to be held on 18th October, 2019, which thereafter vide Press Note dated 4th October, 2019 (Annexure P-6) was preponed to 16th October, 2019. Again a reminder was sent by the petitioner with regard to the discrepancy in the syllabus vide Annexure P-7 on 11th October, 2019, but the same was ignored by the respondents leaving the petitioner with no choice but to approach the Court. 3. Petitioner challenges the syllabus so prescribed by the respondents, inter alia, on the ground that the same was violative of settled norms of service jurisprudence, as once persons having 1st Division in M.Sc. Chemistry/Environment Science and Microbiology were eligible for appointment against the post in question, then the syllabus should have been proportionate and equal for all the streams, so that none of the stream was unduly benefited. The act of the respondents of not doing so was thus bad in law. Further as per the petitioner, initially respondent No. 1 was asking respondent No. 2 to prescribe the syllabus, but as respondent No. 2 declined to do so, respondent No. 1 itself prepared and prescribed the same, which led to the discrepancy in the syllabus, which as per the petitioner was bad and therefore, there was a need to redraw the Syllabus. Further as per the petitioner, the syllabus, as settled, benefited the candidates from Chemistry background and discriminated the candidates from Environment Science and Microbiology background and, therefore also, the act of the respondents was bad as fair and equal treatment was not given to all in the matter of employment. It is on these grounds that act of the respondents stands assailed in this petition. 4. Replies to the petition stand filed by the respondents. It is on these grounds that act of the respondents stands assailed in this petition. 4. Replies to the petition stand filed by the respondents. Respondent No. 2 in its reply has taken the stand that requisition to fill up four posts of Scientific Officers with respondent No. 2 was sent to respondent No. 1 and said respondent advertised the posts in issue alongwith other posts vide Advertisement No. 3/2019 (supra). Respondent No. 2 has further mentioned in its reply that the syllabus for conducting the Screening Test for recruitment to the post in issue was finalized by respondent No. 1 in terms of Column No. 15 of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, which provides that selection for appointment to the post in case of direct recruitment shall be made on the basis of Viva-Voce test or if the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or other recruiting authority considers necessary or expedient, by written test or practical test, the standard/syllabus etc. of which will be determined by the Commission or the other recruiting authority, as the case may be. As per respondent No. 2, the syllabus for selection process of post in issue was finalized by respondent No. 1 in consultation with the subject matter experts. It is further the stand of said respondent that a meeting to finalize the syllabus for recruitment to the post of Scientific Officer and Junior Scientific Officer was convened by respondent No. 1 on 12.04.2019, wherein, representative of respondent No. 2 was also present. As essential qualification for the post contained multiple disciplines, therefore, the Commission consulted the subject matter experts to finalize the syllabus and the syllabus was finalized and published by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on its Website. Said respondent has appended with its reply the minutes of the meeting held on 12.04.2019, inter alia, for the post of Scientific Officer, Class-1 as Annexure R2/2. It further stands mentioned in the reply that respondent No. 1 finalized and published the syllabus for the post of Scientific Officer, whereas, recruitment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer, which post was also advertised by the Public Service Commission vide same Advertisement, was withdrawn on administrative grounds. 5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the reply filed by respondent No. 2. 6. 5. No rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the reply filed by respondent No. 2. 6. In its reply filed by respondent No. 1 to the writ petition, the Commission denied the allegations of the petitioner. The mode and manner in which the syllabus stood prescribed stands mentioned in para Nos. 4 and 5 of the preliminary submissions, which are reproduced hereinbelow: ?5. That it is amply clear that the essential qualification(s) for the post of Scientific Officer is diverse. Therefore, it wasn't feasible to prescribe syllabus from amongst all E.Q. for the said post. Separate syllabi for M.Sc. Degree holders in Chemistry/Environment Science/Microbiology would have been disadvantageous to candidates. As the expert committee was of th opinion that the candidate of one stream will be completely unfamiliar to Masters' level syllabus of other steam, whereas at the Graduation level, candidates of all streams have read the common subjects. Having the syllabus prescribed on Graduation level basis shall provide level playing field to all the candidates. Apart from 80 multiple choice questions covering essential qualification(s) for the said post, 10 questions of General Knowledge of H.P. and 10 questions consisting of General Knowledge of National/International affairs were prescribed. 5. That the syllabus for the post of Scientific Officer has been prescribed by a Committee of subject experts taking into consideration Essential Qualification(s) for the said post. The E.Q. for the said post also includes that candidates should possess Bachelor's degree in Basic Science, which clearly transpires that they had studied Chemistry at Graduation level. Committee of subject experts have taken this fact into account and accordingly prescribed common syllabus out of the syllabus of Bachelor's degree level which was deemed to be studied by all candidates. Hence, the syllabus for the said post was rightly prescribed by the replying respondent and no injustice has been done to any candidates including petitioner by replying respondent.? It is further borne out from the reply filed by the said respondent that in response to the Advertisement in issue, 1189 Online applications were received and 1015 candidates were admitted provisionally on claim basis. Computer based Screening Test for the post in issue was conducted on 16th October, 2019 at various examination centres in the State and 405 candidates appeared in the said test. Computer based Screening Test for the post in issue was conducted on 16th October, 2019 at various examination centres in the State and 405 candidates appeared in the said test. As per the respondent-Commission, the syllabus for the post in issue was finalized by the Commission in terms of the provisions contained in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for the post in issue in general and Column No. 15 thereof in particular. Syllabus for the post in issue was uploaded on the site of the Commission on 16th May, 2019 after finalization of the same for information of all concerned and the desirous and eligible candidates had five months period for preparation as from the date of uploading of syllabus for the post in issue, test for which was conducted on 16th October, 2019. As per respondent No. 1, as the petitioner was working as a Junior Scientific Officer with respondent No. 2, the intent of the petitioner was to intentionally delay recruitment process, as but obvious, Scientific Officers, who were to be recruited, were to become senior to her after their appointment. Further, as per respondent No. 1, it was fully competent to prescribe the syllabus for any post, where no syllabus was prescribed in the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The syllabus for the post in issue was uploaded on the Commission's Website on 16th May, 2019 after finalization of the same for information of all concerned and the representation of the petitioner was considered and not found worthy of merit. It is further mentioned in the reply that the date of test was pre-poned on account of administrative reasons. There was no co-relation between recruitment to the post of Senior Scientific Officer and Scientific Officer, as number of candidates who had applied for the post of Scientific Officer was comparatively higher than Senior Scientific Officer and a Screening Test thus for this post was inevitable for short listing candidates. It is further the stand of the said respondent that a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Under Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 12th April, 2019 for prescribing the syllabi for various posts of respondent No. 2, including that of Scientific Officer and as the Committee was unable to decide the syllabi for these posts, therefore, the Committee unanimously decided to consult subject matter experts for prescribing syllabi for the post in issue. On these basis, said respondent denies the claim of the petitioner. 7. Petitioner in her rejoinder reiterated the stand taken in the petition, including the fact that the syllabus was prescribed just to give advantage to the persons from the Chemistry stream. As per the petitioner, the entire process deserved quashing as fair opportunity was not given to all eligible candidates. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the syllabus which was prescribed by the respondent-Commission was heavily loaded in favour of Chemistry stream, which resulted in grave injustice to the candidates of other streams, like the petitioner. He argued that the reply filed by respondent No 1 was vague, as no details were given as to who ultimately prescribed the syllabus and who set the papers, on the basis of said syllabus. He argued that the entire process was shrouded with suspicion and, therefore, the same deserved to be quashed and set aside. He stated that as the process adopted by the respondent was not fair, therefore, this Court should direct the respondent-Commission to produce the entire record to demonstrate as to how the syllabus was set, who set the syllabus and who set the papers. No other point was urged. He also relied upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Prabhu Dayal Sesma Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (1991) 2 RLW 93. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 while vehemently opposing the petition argued that there was no merit in the petition as entire claim of the petitioner was without any valid genesis. He argued that the syllabus in issue was set up strictly in consonance with the Recruitment Rules as well as eligibility criteria laid down in the Rules. He argued that it was also evident from the reply filed by respondent No. 1 that the syllabus which was prescribed for the post in issue was of graduation level and the purpose of prescribing a graduation level syllabus was to ensure that all candidates who were to appear in the examination, had a fair opportunity to compete in the recruitment process. He further argued that it was not the case of the petitioner that the questions were out of syllabus or that the syllabus was not in consonance with the questions prescribed. He further argued that it was not the case of the petitioner that the questions were out of syllabus or that the syllabus was not in consonance with the questions prescribed. He submitted that there was no occasion for the Public Service Commission to reveal as to who set the papers, on the demand of the petitioner, because the entire secrecy which is involved in the papers would be then revealed. On these basis, he defended the act of respondent No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. He also relied upon the following judgments: ?1. Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 732. 2. Union of India and another Vs. Talwinder Singh (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 480.? 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended with the petition. 12. At the very out set, learned Senior Counsel was asked by the Court as to whether the petitioner alleges malafide? Learned Senior Counsel very fairly submitted that no malafide was being alleged, however, he urged that what the petitioner alleging was colourable exercise of power by respondent No. 1. 13. The factum as stands narrated hereinabove clearly demonstrates that the grievance of the petitioner primarily is with regard to the syllabus which was prescribed by respondent No. 1 for making recruitment to the post of Scientific Officer. The Advertisement inviting applications for the post in issue was issued on 21st February, 2019 and the last date to submit applications was 13th March, 2019. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that she moved from pillar to post to find out as to what was the prescribed syllabus for the written test, however, her entire endeavour yielded no results till she came to know somewhere in the month of August, 2019 that the syllabus stood uploaded on the Website of respondent No. 1 somewhere in June-July, 2019, but facts demonstrate that the averments which have been made in this regard are contrary to the record. Petitioner alleges that the syllabus was uploaded on the Website by respondent No. 1 somewhere in June-July, 2019, whereas it is a matter of record that the syllabus stood uploaded on the Website of respondent No. 1 on 16th May, 2019. 14. Incidentally, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is working as Junior Scientific Officer with respondent No. 2 and is residing in Shimla. That being so, it is difficult to believe that she was not aware of the uploading of syllabus by respondent No. 1 in the month of May, 2019. Be that as it may, it is further a matter of record that the first representation which she made against the syllabus is dated 27th September, 2019 and reminder was purportedly sent by her on 11.10.2019. 15. A perusal of the Advertisement demonstrates that the essential qualification for the post in issue was 1st Class M.Sc. Degree in Chemistry/Environmental Science/Micro-Biology with a Bachelor's Degree in Basic Science from a recognized University/Institution or Bachelor Degree in Chemical Engineering or Bio-Chemical Engineering. As per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the post in issue which are appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, the selection for appointment to the post in case of direct recruitment was to be made on the basis of Viva-Voce test or if the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or other recruiting authority as the case may be, considers it necessary and expedient, then by way of a written test or practical test, the standard/syllabus etc. of which was to be determined by the Commission or the recruiting authority. A perusal of the Recruitment and Promotion Rules thus makes it apparently clear that in the eventuality of a written test being held, standard of the test and syllabus of the test was to be prescribed by the Commission. 16. The syllabus for the post, which stood uploaded by respondent No. 1, stands appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. Though as is borne out from the record, more than one thousand candidates applied for the post in issue, yet none objected to the standards of the test or the syllabus prescribed for the post except the petitioner, who also submitted her representation against the syllabus at an extremely belated stage. 17. Though as is borne out from the record, more than one thousand candidates applied for the post in issue, yet none objected to the standards of the test or the syllabus prescribed for the post except the petitioner, who also submitted her representation against the syllabus at an extremely belated stage. 17. Be that as it may, as I have already mentioned hereinabove, Recruitment and Promotion Rules clearly lay down that the standards and syllabus for the written test was to be determined by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission or any other recruiting authority as the case was to be. 18. In the present case, as the process for recruitment was undertaken by the Commission, therefore, but natural, standards of the test as well as syllabus of the test was to be determined by the Commission. It is not the case of the petitioner that either the standards of the test or the syllabus of the test was out of context vis-a-vis the essential qualification prescribed. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the syllabus prescribed was not in consonance with the qualification prescribed. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that the written test was out of syllabus. As I have already mentioned above, it is not the case of the petitioner that the syllabus in issue was prescribed by respondent No. 1 malafidely to help someone. That being the case, as it was the prerogative of the recruiting agency which in the present case is respondent No. 1 to prescribe the syllabus, the act of the said agency cannot be upset by this Court simply because a candidate feels that the syllabus purportedly is loaded towards a particular stream. 19. Incidentally, in para-5 of the preliminary submissions of its reply, respondent No. 1 has clearly stated that the Committee of subject experts prescribed common syllabus out of the syllabus of Bachelor's degree level, which was deemed to be studied by all candidates, keeping in view that essential qualification for the post also prescribed that the candidates were to possess Bachelor's degree in Basic Science, which includes study of Chemistry at graduation level. 20. Prescribing the syllabus is the job of experts. 20. Prescribing the syllabus is the job of experts. As malafides are not alleged and it is not alleged that the syllabus was beyond qualifications or the papers were out of syllabus, this Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would not enter into the footsteps of the experts in the matter of prescribing the syllabus or setting the papers. As far as the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the State should call for the records from respondent No. 1 as to how the syllabus was prescribed or how and who set the papers, this Court concurs with the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that this should not be done for the simple reason that the same would lift the veil of secrecy, which is completely undesirable in the facts of this case. 21. I will briefly refer to the judgments which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. 22. In Prabhu Dayal Sesma Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (1991) 2 RLW 93, i.e., the judgment which has been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Court was dealing with a situation where the syllabus which was prescribed for recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant provided that compulsory papers shall be of higher secondary standard. In the said case, in the paper which was from Arithmetic stream, questions relating to Algebra, Geometry and even Statistics were asked and the Hon'ble Court held that it was clear that Arithmetic, Algebra and Geometry were being treated as independent papers for the purpose of higher secondary standard and on these basis, Hon'ble Court held that the examiner who was asked by the Commission to prepare the question paper had ignored the fact that the questions should be confined to Arithmetic only. Hon'ble Court held that the examiner probably took the paper of Mathematics and included the questions relating to Algebra, Geometry and even Statistics in that paper and this demonstrated that the question paper of Arithmetic was not in accordance with the syllabus. This judgment, in my considered view, is of no assistance to the petitioner, because here the case of the petitioner is not this that the written test was not in consonance with the syllabus. Her case also is not that the syllabus is not in consonance with the essential qualifications. This judgment, in my considered view, is of no assistance to the petitioner, because here the case of the petitioner is not this that the written test was not in consonance with the syllabus. Her case also is not that the syllabus is not in consonance with the essential qualifications. Petitioner wants the syllabus to be of her liking rather than the same being, as determined by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. 23. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has also relied upon two judgments. In Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 732, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ?37. The Constitution Bench of this Court in The University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Anr. AIR 1965 SC 491 held that "normally the Court should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts." It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. This view has consistently been reiterated by this Court as is evident from the Judgments in The State of Bihar & Anr. Vs. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee & Ors., Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke Vs. Dr. B.S. Mahajan, Central Areca Nut & Cocoa Marketing & Processing Co-operative Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. and Dental Council of India Vs. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust. 38. However, if the provision of law is to be read or understood or interpreted, the Court has to play an important role. [P.M. Bhargava & Ors. Vs. University Grants Commission & Anr. and Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.) Vs. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, Sirsa & Anr. 39. In the instant case, the Expert Committee was appointed by the High Court itself. No allegation of malafide or disqualification against any Member of that Committee had ever been made/raised. Thus, we fail to understand as on what basis, its recommendation on the issue involved herein, has been brushed aside by the High Court without giving any reason whatsoever, particularly, when the Act governing VMH does not prohibit the use of the part of the compound for the purpose other than connected with Queen Victoria. 24. Similarly, in Union of India and another Vs. 24. Similarly, in Union of India and another Vs. Talwinder Singh (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 480, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: ?10. In Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity, this Court while placing reliance upon a large number of earlier judgments including Constitution Bench judgment in University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao held that ordinarily, the court should not interfere with the order based on opinion of experts on the subject. It would be safe for the courts to leave the decision to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be.? 25. Thus, in view of the discussions made hereinabove as well as the law discussed (supra), as this Court finds no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. No order as to costs.