Judgment Wangdi, J. 1(i). The gravamen of the Petitioner’s case is that he belongs to the category of ‘Other Backward Classes’, i.e., ‘OBC’, recognised by the State of Sikkim for the purpose of employment and other privileges. Having aspired to take up course in medicine, he had appeared in the Common Entrance Test -2014, for medical seats held by the State of Sikkim, in which he was successful in being placed at serial no.3 (three) of the merit list of OBC category candidates for which 6 (six) seats were allotted. However, in the first counseling held by the Respondent No.1, he was shocked and dismayed on being informed that there was a dispute with regard to the OBC certificate issued to him and, therefore, although eligible in the OBC category, nomination for medical seat would not be issued to him. (ii) On 10-07-2014, the Petitioner received the impugned letter bearing Memo No.161/SDOP dated 10-07-2014, Annexure P-3, informing him that since he did not satisfy the eligibility criteria laid down for issuance of OBC certificate as his father had held the post of Deputy Director falling under Group ‘A’ category before he attained the age of 40 years, the certificate issued to him was required to be surrendered to the Respondent No.2 for cancellation. (iii) It is alleged that the withdrawal of the OBC certificate was most arbitrary as it was done without issuing any notice upon the Petitioner and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him in clear violation of the principle of natural justice. It is further stated that even factually the Petitioner’s father was not holding a substantive post of Deputy Director on the date when the OBC certificate was issued but was holding that post only in an officiating capacity. Reference has been made in this regard to the Office Order bearing No.2005/G/DOP dated 24-02-2004, Annexure P-5. That he was confirmed in that post only in the year 2011 vide Office Order bearing No.5682/G/DOP dated 10-06-2011, Annexure P-6. It is, therefore, submitted that the withdrawal of the OBC certificate was on a wrong premise and clearly misconceived. 2. Reference has been made in this regard to the Office Order bearing No.2005/G/DOP dated 24-02-2004, Annexure P-5. That he was confirmed in that post only in the year 2011 vide Office Order bearing No.5682/G/DOP dated 10-06-2011, Annexure P-6. It is, therefore, submitted that the withdrawal of the OBC certificate was on a wrong premise and clearly misconceived. 2. When the matter came up for admission on 22-07-2014 for the first time, this Court on being satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out by the Petitioner directed that status quo be maintained until the next date in respect of 1 (one) seat belonging to the OBC category in MBBS Course -2014 as it existed on that day in CM Appl No.211 of 2014. This was confirmed on the next date, i.e., 25-07-2014 while allowing the prayer made on behalf of the Respondents for time to file their counter-affidavits. It may be noted that no counter-affidavit has yet been filed by the State-Respondents in this case. 3. Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, Learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner, submits that considering that delay in disposal of the case may cause grave prejudice to the Petitioner as he may lose the medical seat that he was entitled to, it may be taken up urgently and disposed of. Mr. J. B. Pradhan, the Learned Additional Advocate General, also agrees that the Writ Petition may be disposed of without a counter-affidavit based on the materials placed by the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the case is taken up for its disposal. 4(i). Since the impugned letter Annexure P-3 has been issued essentially based upon the Office Order bearing No.2005/G/DOP dated 24-02-2004, Annexure P-5, the only question for determination is as to whether that order falls within the mischief of the criteria for exclusion laid down under Notification bearing No.86/SJEWD/WD dated 09-06-2014. This would be the only question that would be germane for consideration. (ii) On a perusal of the above Notification, it is found that Schedule – I prescribes the criteria for exclusion of persons for being eligible for benefits provided for OBC category. This would be the only question that would be germane for consideration. (ii) On a perusal of the above Notification, it is found that Schedule – I prescribes the criteria for exclusion of persons for being eligible for benefits provided for OBC category. The criteria which the Respondent No.2 has applied in issuing the impugned letter, Annexure P-3, is found at Clause (f) of Schedule – I which we may reproduce for convenience:- “(f) Parents, both of whom or either of whom is a directly recruited to Group “B” Officer and who gets into Class I/Group “A” at the age of forty or earlier;” (iii) Needless to state that the category of the officers mentioned in the above Clause would certainly mean the ones inducted substantively and would not bring within its ambit any officiating appointments unless specifically mentioned otherwise. (iv) On a bare reading of the Office Order bearing No.2005/G/DOP dated 24-02-2004, Annexure P-5, it is quite apparent that the promotion of the father of the Petitioner to the post of Deputy Director in the Sikkim State Agriculture Service was simply on “officiating capacity”. Since this Office Order is of considerable significance, we may reproduce the relevant portions of it below:- “GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL A.R. & TRAINING GANGTOK No._ 2005____/G/DOP Dated: 24.02.2004. OFFICE ORDER The Governor is pleased to promote the following Junior Grade Officer of Agriculture/Horticulture Department to the post of Deputy Director in the scale of Rs. 9000-300-13800 in the Sikkim State Agriculture Service in an officiating capacity with immediate effect:- 1. ………………………………… 2. ………………………………… 3. ………………………………… 4. ………………………………… 5. ………………………………… 6. ………………………………… 7. ………………………………… 8. ………………………………… 9. Shri P.L. Basnett, 10. ………………………………… 11. ………………………………… 12. ………………………………… 13. ………………………………… The above officiating promotion shall be subject to the following conditions:- 1. The officiating promotions shall not confer any right for regular promotion and shall not be counted towards seniority. 2. Their regular promotion shall be made on the recommendation of the Sikkim Public Service Commission. BY ORDER SD/- (C.L. SHARMA)) ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF SIKKIM DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL. The officiating promotions shall not confer any right for regular promotion and shall not be counted towards seniority. 2. Their regular promotion shall be made on the recommendation of the Sikkim Public Service Commission. BY ORDER SD/- (C.L. SHARMA)) ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF SIKKIM DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL. A.R. & TRAINING ………………………………………………………………….” [underlining mine] (v) We find that Shri P. L. Basnett, the father of the Petitioner, was promoted to the substantive post of Deputy Director in Group ‘A’ category only in June, 2011, vide Office Order bearing No.5682/G/DOP dated 10-06-2011, Annexure P-6 as would appear from its following extract:- “GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL A.R. & TRAINING, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, GANGTOK – 737101 No. 5682/G/DOP Dated: 10.06.2011. OFFICE ORDER The Governor, on the recommendation of the Sikkim Public Service Commission is pleased to promote the following members of the Sikkim State Agriculture Service to the post of Deputy Director in the Pay Band-3 Rs. 15600-39100 and Pay Band of Rs.6200 with immediate effect:- 1. …………………………….. 13. …………………………….. 2. Shri P. L. Basnett 14. …………………………….. 3. …………………………….. 15. …………………………….. 4. …………………………….. 16. …………………………….. 5. …………………………….. 17. …………………………….. 6. …………………………….. 18. …………………………….. 7. …………………………….. 19. …………………………….. 8. …………………………….. 20. …………………………….. 9. …………………………….. 21. …………………………….. 10. …………………………….. 22. …………………………….. 11.B …………………………….. 23. …………………………….. 12. …………………………….. BY ORDER Sd/- (PRAKSH SUBBA) JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF SIKKIM DEPTT. OF PERSONNEL, A.R. & TRAINING, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES, ………………………………………………………………….” [underlining mine] (vi) It is also revealed that on the day when the aforesaid Office Order, Annexure P-6 was issued, the father had already attained the age of about 46 years considering that his date of birth is “01-03-1965” as mentioned in the impugned letter, Annexure P-3, dated 10-07-2014. Therefore, one of the conditions for exclusion from reservation as contained under Clause (f) of having got into Class I/Group “A” at the age of forty or earlier, did not apply to him. In other words, he was eligible for the reservations provided to the OBC category. (vii) In view of the above, there can be no other conclusion but to hold that the impugned letter has been issued erroneously based on wrong premises or on a wrong understanding of the criteria laid down in the Notification prescribing the criteria for being excluded from the list of OBC. (viii) Mr. (vii) In view of the above, there can be no other conclusion but to hold that the impugned letter has been issued erroneously based on wrong premises or on a wrong understanding of the criteria laid down in the Notification prescribing the criteria for being excluded from the list of OBC. (viii) Mr. J. B. Pradhan, Learned Additional Advocate General, no doubt made a prayer that the case be remitted to Respondent No.2 for his consideration afresh. However, considering the fact that the order is palpably erroneous and perverse, it would be an exercise in futility to accede to the prayer made by him. 5. For these reasons, the impugned letter, Annexure P-3, hereby stands quashed. 6. The State-Respondents shall take immediate steps for revalidation of the Petitioner’s OBC certificate and for allotting to him the medical seat withheld in view of the orders dated 22-07-2014 and 25-07-2014 in CM Appl No.211 of 2014. While complying with these directions, the Respondents shall take into consideration the fact that allotment of seats ought to be made within 30th day of this month. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 8. Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to approach this Court if aggrieved by any action of the Respondents. 9. No order as to costs.