Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1430 (HP)

Durga Dass v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2014-10-15

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Selection process for filling up the posts of Constables was initiated by the Department. Petitioner participated in the selection process. He applied under Scheduled Tribe (IRDP) category alongwith respondent No.5. Respondent No.5 was selected to the post of Constable under Scheduled Tribe (IRDP) category. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that respondent No.5 does not belong to Scheduled Tribe (IRDP) category. Petitioner has placed Scheduled Tribe certificate of respondent No.5 at page 22 of the paper book. According to the petitioner, respondent No.5 belongs to District Mandi. An inquiry was got conducted by respondent-State from the Assistant Commissioner to Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo vide Annexure R-1. According to Annexure R-1, Scheduled Tribe certificate dated 13.4.2007 was issued in favour of respondent No.5. Father of Sanjeev Kumar, Sh. Dalip Kumar owns land in Tehsil Moorang and has been recorded as Scheduled Tribe Kinnaura in the pedigree table as per the report of Tehsildar, Moorang. According to the report of Tehsildar, Moorang respondent No.5 was not born at village Skibba of Rispa Panchayat of Development Block, Pooh though name of his father Sh. Dalip Kumar has been entered at page No.99 of Part No.1- 1993 of Pariwar register. The Court has gone through the Pariwar register and the revenue record placed on record. Family of respondent No.5 owns land in Mohal Skibba, Tehsil Moorang, District Kinnaur. Merely that respondent No.5 has obtained IRDP certificate from District Mandi would not get his status of Scheduled Tribe extinguished. According to the reply filed by respondent-State, the certificate of Scheduled Tribe issued in favour of respondent No.5 was found to be genuine. Respondent No.5 has rightly been considered against the post of Scheduled Tribe for appointment as Constable. 3. Accordingly, in view of the analysis and discussion 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.