Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 846 (HP)

Promila Devi v. State of H. P

2012-11-19

RAJIV SHARMA

body2012
Judgment Rajiv Sharma, J. Applications were invited for filling up the posts of T.G.T. (Arts) vide advertisement dated 16.7.2002. The last date of receipt of applications was 10.8.2002. Petitioner submitted an application for considering her candidature for the post of T.G.T. (Arts) under general (I.R.D.P.) category. Written test was conducted by respondent No.2 on 26.9.2002. Result was declared on 23.10.2002. Petitioner has secured 123 marks in the written test. Process for filling up the posts of T.G.T. (Arts) was not completed by respondents No.1 to 3. It was re-initiated by respondents No.1 to 3 in sequel to judgment dated 3.8.2010 rendered in CWP No. 3513 of 2009, titled Manoj Kumar and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. Petitioner was issued call letter on 14.7.2011. She appeared in interview on 15.9.2011. Result was declared by respondent No.2 on 30.9.2011. Petitioner’s candidature was considered under general category (unreserved). 2. Mr. Keshav Thakur has vehemently argued that the candidature of the petitioner was required to be considered under general (I.R.D.P.) category instead of general category (unreserved). 3. Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General has argued that the petitioner has not furnished the I.R.D.P/B.P.L. certificate either at the time of interview on 15.9.2011 or at the time when she submitted an application for considering her candidature on 10.8.2002. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The last date of receipt of application was 10.8.2002. Petitioner has been issued call letter vide Annexure P-9. It would be apt at this stage to reproduce condition No.8 of Annexure P-9, which reads thus: “In case you belong to IRDP/BPL category you should bring the necessary certificate in the prescribed format duly countersigned by the Competent Authority. To claim that you belong to the IRDP/BPL family you should also bring a copy of Parivar Register where your name is entered in the IRDP/BPL family. As the IRDP/BPL certificate is valid only for six months from the date of its issue, the certificate (s) should be valid on the last date fixed for the receipt i.e. as on 10.8.2002 of application for the post as well as on the date of interview.” 6. As the IRDP/BPL certificate is valid only for six months from the date of its issue, the certificate (s) should be valid on the last date fixed for the receipt i.e. as on 10.8.2002 of application for the post as well as on the date of interview.” 6. It is clear from the phraseology employed in this condition that the petitioner was required to bring I.R.D.P./B.P.L. certificate in the prescribed format duly countersigned by the competent authority at the time of interview. Petitioner was also required to bring the copy of parivar register to prove that she belongs to I.R.D.P./B.P.L. family. The candidates were also put to caveat that I.R.D.P./B.P.L. certificate was valid only for six months from the date of issue and the certificate should be valid on the last date fixed, i.e. 10.8.2002 as well as on the date of interview. Petitioner has placed on record certificate Annexure P-5. This certificate has been issued in favour of Ashok Kumar Patial, that too, by the Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Sarkaghat on 6.9.2011 and not in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner was required to produce independent certificate that she belongs to I.R.D.P./B.P.L. category. She could not derive benefit from the certificate issued in favour of her husband Sh. Ashok Patial. Petitioner was permitted to appear in the written test provisionally. She has not placed on record any tangible evidence to establish that she belongs to I.R.D.P./B.P.L. family either at the time of last date of receipt of application, i.e. 10.8.2002 or at the time of interview i.e. 15.9.2011. The certificate ought to have been issued by the competent authority in the prescribed format. Annexure P-5 does not meet the requirement. She was also required to produce the copy of Parivar register to substantiate that she belongs to I.R.D.P./B.P.L. category. Since the petitioner did not produce any I.R.D.P./B.P.L. certificate either at the time of submitting her application, i.e. on or before 10.8.2002 or at the time of interview, i.e. 15.9.2011 that she belongs to I.R.D.P./B.P.L., in these circumstances, she has rightly been considered under general category (unreserved). Petitioner has also averred that she has given undertaking that she may be considered against the unreserved post. Once she has given an undertaking to be considered against the general category (unreserved) post, she cannot turn around and claim that she should have been considered against the I.R.D.P/B.P.L. category. 7. Petitioner has also averred that she has given undertaking that she may be considered against the unreserved post. Once she has given an undertaking to be considered against the general category (unreserved) post, she cannot turn around and claim that she should have been considered against the I.R.D.P/B.P.L. category. 7. So far as private respondents are concerned, according to the reply filed by respondent No.2, they have furnished certificates belonging to I.R.D.P./B.P.L. category at the time of interview. 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.