Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 885 (HP)

Anjana Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh

2016-05-23

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned writ Court whereby it allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 herein and quashed the selection of appellant to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher (for short ‘PAT’). The facts, in brief, may be noticed. 2. Both the contesting parties applied for the post of ‘PAT’. On the basis of selection conducted by the official respondents, the appellant came to be appointed and the same was assailed by respondent No.5 herein on the ground that the appellant was less meritorious. 3. The official-respondents in their reply stated that the selection was fair and made in accordance with the norms and procedure as prescribed for the purpose of selection/appointment of ‘PAT’. 4. The tabulated performance of the respective parties is as under:- Applicant:- +2 Marks (actual) % age B.A. PG Certificate/Diploma one year course. Unemployed family Personal Interview Total 31.1 --- --- --- 10 She has not produced OBC certificate from competent Authority hence not eligible. Respondent No.5:- +2 Marks (actual) % age B.A. PG Certificate/Diploma one year course. Unemployed family Personal Interview Total 27.4 --- --- --- 10 9 46.4 5. It is not in dispute that the post of ‘PAT’ in Primary School, Hinner was reserved for category of Other Backward Class (OBC) as notified by the Government. 6. The learned writ Court on the basis of the material placed on record came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner had been wrongly denied marks for the OBC certificate and after quashing the selection directed respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the case of the writ petitioner for the post in question. 7. Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned writ Court, the appellant has assailed the selection of writ petitioner on the ground that the OBC certificate produced by her was not valid as the same had been issued by the SDM, Rajgarh, whereas, the post in question fell within the Kandaghat jurisdiction and it was, therefore, only the certificate issued by the SDM, Kandaghat in whose jurisdiction the school was located that would be valid. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. 8. At the outset, we may observe that even the learned counsel for the appellant has not disputed that the writ petitioner belongs to OBC. His only objection is with respect to the authority which is competent to issue the said certificate. 9. It cannot be disputed that notification with respect to the OBC is issued by the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, and the caste/community of the writ petitioner is clearly reflected therein. It is on the basis of this notification that the authorized Officers of the State have been conferred powers to issue certificates of OBC. Therefore, whether it is SDM, Rajgarh or SDM, Kandaghat or for that matter even any other SDM, who might have issued the OBC certificate, the same shall make no difference and shall be legal and valid irrespective of the school where the vacancy is sought to be filled up. After-all, it is not Tehsil or District-wise or region-wise that the cases of the OBC are determined, but the same, as stated earlier, are determined on the basis of notification issued by the State Government. These lists are prepared on the basis of a detailed survey carried out by the Government for identifying such castes/categories/ communities on the basis of the evaluation criteria laid down by the Government. 10. Once, it was not disputed even by the appellant that the writ petitioner belongs to OBC category, then there was no reason for the authorities to have rejected the OBC certificate submitted by her that too only on the ground that the certificate was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Rajgarh and not by the Executive Magistrate, Kandaghat in whose jurisdiction the school was located. 11. No other point was urged. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, no fault can be found with the judgment rendered by the learned writ Court. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.