Soma Devi vs H.P. University

Rajiv Sharma, J.—The respondent-University issued advertisement No. 2/2011 dated 8.2.2011, whereby applications were invited in the prescribed proforma for filling-up 30 posts of Clerks on contractual basis on or before 26.2.2011. According to advertisement No. 2/2011, 7 posts were to be filled up from OBC category and 5 posts were reserved for OBC general. Petitioner belongs to OBC general. The screening test was held on 6.12.2011 and typing test on 30.1.2012. Since the petitioner had qualified screening as well as typing test, she was called for personal interview on 1.6.2012. However, fact of the matter is that she was not offered appointment as per merit list.

Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Advocate, has vehemently argued that respondents No. 2 and 3 have been wrongly appointed against OBC category. According to him, as per Chapter 28.13 of Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, the backward classes certificate is valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance. In other words, his submission is that respondents No. 2 and 3 were issued OBC certificates on 19.2.2010 and the same expired on 26.2.2011. According to him in the OBC certificate issued to respondent No. 2, name of her father has been written as Med Ram.

Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-University and Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3 have vehemently argued that respondents No. 2 and 3 were fully eligible to be considered for appointment to the posts of Clerks and they have been rightly considered against OBC category.

The court has summoned the record. It is clear from the record that the petitioner has annexed photocopy of the OBC certificate dated 23.9.2008 and OBC certificate dated 14.10.2011. Last date of receipt of applications as per advertisement No. 2/2011 was 26.2.2011. The petitioner has submitted latest OBC certificate dated 14.10.2011 beyond the last date of receipt of application.

According to the petitioner, OBC certificates issued in favour of private respondents are contrary to the revenue record. The petitioner herself was not eligible since she did not file valid OBC certificate on or before the last date of receipt of application. As far as the OBC certificates obtained by private respondents is concerned, the same cannot be permitted to be challenged in collateral proceedings. Respondents No. 2 and 3 are higher in merit vis-a-vis the petitioner. Now, as far as controversy with regard to name of father of respondent No. 2 in OBC certificate is concerned, it is clear from Annexure R2/E and Annexure R2/F that name of father of respondent No. 2 has been written as Umed Ram Sharma in matriculation certificate. Thus, there is no merit in the contention of Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Advocate that the OBC certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 2 at page 33 of the paper book is not valid. Suitability of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondents No. 2 and 3 has been adjudged strictly as per the procedure prescribed.

In view of analysis and observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.