Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 456 (HP)

Kulvinder Singh v. Union of India

2011-02-21

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Issue raised in the writ petition pertains to the claim made by the petitioners for selection to the post of Constable/Buglar under O.B.C. category. 2. On 20.5.2010 this Court passed the following order:- “There will be a direction to the Secretary to the Government of India, Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi to file an affidavit as to what is the stage of the steps taken for inclusion of ‘Jat’ Community in the Himachal Pradesh under the O.B.C. category, particularly in view of the fact as far as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned, the same ‘Jat’ is an O.B.C. community. The aforesaid affidavit shall be filed within a month from today. The petitioners in both these cases submit that they had been selected for appointment as Constable/Bugler under the O.B.C. category. But it has been turned down later on the ground that the ‘Jat’ community is not O.B.C. as far as the Government of India is concerned. That community in Himachal Pradesh in any has to be considered against the General Merit. Since the petitioner has otherwise been found fit and suitable for being appointed to the said post, it is only appropriate that the Director General (C.R.P.F.) takes a decision in the matter expeditiously. There will be a direction to the Director General (C.R.P.F.) to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observations made in this order and take a decision within six weeks from today. The Registry will also communicate a copy of this order to Secretary to the Government of India, Social Justice and Empowerment, New Delhi as also the Director General of Police (C.R.P.F.) immediately. Post on 5th July, 2010.” 3. In order dated 20.5.2010 we have directed the Director General of C.R.P.F. to consider the case of the petitioner treating him as General Category candidate, deferring the dispute of his claim for O.B.C. category. Apparently, the same has not been done. In case any General Category candidate with a lower merit than the petitioners have to be appointed forthwith. 4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that the main issue is now engaging consideration of the National Commission. However, the National Commission has deferred the final decision in view of the pendency of the very same issue before the High Court of Rajasthan. 4. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India submits that the main issue is now engaging consideration of the National Commission. However, the National Commission has deferred the final decision in view of the pendency of the very same issue before the High Court of Rajasthan. It is for the National Commission to take steps to get the matter disposed of expeditiously. 5. This writ petition is filed in the year 2006. So there shall be a direction to the National Commission to take a final decision in the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Needless to say that the action taken in the case of the petitioners will be subject to the decision thus taken by the National Commission. 6. Both the petitions are disposed of.