Durga Devi vs State of H.P. and Others

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioner, who was a candidate for the post of Constable reserved for Scheduled Tribe category, is aggrieved by the action of Respondent No. 2 in selecting Respondent No. 3 Sapna Devi, for appointment against the aforesaid post of Constable.

Relevant facts may be noticed. Three vacancies of female Constable were advertised by Respondent No. 2, i.e.Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. Two posts were reserved, one for Scheduled Tribe candidates and the other for Scheduled Caste candidates. Third vacancy was unreserved. Petitioner, being from a Scheduled Tribe, applied for the post reserved for the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Respondent �2� No. 3, according to the Petitioner, though also belongs to a Scheduled Tribe, did not apply for the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe because in the application she mentioned that she belonged to Scheduled Tribe and was also a ward of Exserviceman. There being no post reserved for ST who was ward of Ex-servicemen, she could not have been selected.

Respondent No. 3 Sapna Devi in her reply has stated that she applied for the post reserved for ST candidate and that there being a column in the prescribed application as to whether the candidate belonged to any further sub category, like Ex-servicemen or ward of Ex-servicemen, she wrote against the column that she was a ward of Ex-serviceman. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have stated that Sapna Devi belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and so her application was entertained and she having secured higher marks than the Petitioner, was shown in the select list. They have stated that there being no post reserved for sub category ward of Ex-servicemen in the category of Scheduled Tribe candidate, there was no question of Respondent No. 3 being considered against the sub category of Ex-servicemen or her application being treated against any vacancy of such sub category.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

Application form, which was submitted by Respondent No. 3 is available as Annexure R-3/A on the record.Column 8(a) of the application form seeks information from the applicant whether he/she belongs to SC/ST/OBC. Against this column, Respondent No. 3 wrote that she belongs to ST. Column 8(b) seeks information whether the candidate belongs to sub category of ward of freedom fighter/Ex-servicemen/Home Guard etc. and against this column Respondent No. 3 wrote Exserviceman.Respondent No. 3, because of her having written against Column 8(b) that she was ward of Ex-servicemen cannot be said to have applied for the post meant for the ward of Scheduled Tribe Ex-servicemen. When there was no post reserved for ward of Ex-servicemen or any other sub category referred to in Column 8(b), it can legitimately be assumed that Respondent No. 3 applied against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe but since there was a column asking further information whether the candidate belong to any sub category she wrote words ''ward of Ex-servicemen'' against that column

In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed.