Renuka vs State Of H.P And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Advertisement No.3/2015 was issued by the respondents-Health Department on 26.09.2015, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the posts of Laboratory Technicians in various districts. Seven posts of Laboratory Technicians were advertised for District Kangra. The split-up of these seven posts as given in the advertisement was as under:-

Unreserved - 3

Unreserved BPL - 1

OBC - 1

SC - 1

SC BPL - 1

The petitioner applied under the Scheduled Caste category for the post of Laboratory Technician meant for District Kangra. The respondents circulated a list of candidates shortlisted for interview for the posts of Laboratory Technician. This list has been appended at Annexure A-11 of the paper-book. Name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No.2 in the list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Laboratory Technician-SC category, whereas name of private respondent No.5-Sh. Sumit Kumar figures at Sr. No.4 in the list of shortlisted candidates for the post of Laboratory Technician-OBC category. The interviews for the posts were held on 19.11.2015. The petitioner was also interviewed for the post under the Scheduled Caste category. Remaining unsuccessful in the interview, he has preferred the instant petition with following grievances:-

A. Only one post was reserved for OBC category in the advertisement, however, the respondents have actually appointed two candidates from this category.

B. Three posts in the advertisement were meant to be filled-up from the General Unreserved category, whereas the respondents have selected and appointed four candidates from General category.

C. Respondent No.5-Sh. Sumit Kumar was shortlisted by the respondents for interview for the post of Laboratory Technician under OBC category, whereas his appointment has been made under the Scheduled

Caste category.

Pointing out the above alleged violations, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the selection and appointment of private respondents No.5 to 11 to the post of Laboratory Technicians has been made by the respondents de-hors the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically pressed for setting aside the appointment of respondent No.5 on the ground that he was shortlisted for interview under the OBC category, whereas he was selected and appointed under the Scheduled Caste category.

Learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the strength of the reply filed by respondents No.1 to 4 submitted that no application from any candidate belonging to General (BPL) and Scheduled Caste (BPL) categories was received by the respondents, therefore, a clarification in that regard was sought by respondent No.4 from the higher authorities prior to holding the interview. Clarification was received that in absence of any application from the candidates belonging to BPL sub-categories, the posts of these categories may be filled-up from the respective main categories, i.e. post of General (BPL) category be filled-up from the eligible candidates in order of merit from the General category and the post of Scheduled Caste (BPL) category be filled-up from amongst the Scheduled Caste category candidates in accordance with law. On that basis, four posts were filled-up from the candidates belonging to General category and two posts were filled-up from the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category. A fair and transparent recruitment process was carried out strictly as per the merit arrived at in accordance with the criteria laid down in the matter.

Insofar as the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 is concerned, it has been pleaded in the reply and submitted by learned Senior Additional Advocate General, that the name of respondent No.5 was wrongly mentioned in the list of shortlisted candidates under the OBC category, whereas he belongs to Scheduled Caste category and had applied as such. This was a clerical error, which had crept while preparing the list of shortlisted candidates. The error was rectified at the time of scrutiny of the documents prior to the interviews.

During hearing of the case, learned Senior Additional Advocate General produced the application form submitted by respondent No.5 for applying to the post in question. The application form shows that respondent No.5 had applied as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category. His Scheduled Caste certificate has also been placed on record by the respondents. Learned Senior Additional Advocate General has also placed on record instructions dated 10.11.2021, issued by the Director Health Services, Himachal Pradesh, to the effect that the petitioner as well as private respondent No.5-Sumit Kumar had applied under the category of Scheduled Caste and further that in the list of shortlisted candidates (Annexure A-11), the name of private respondent No.5 was wrongly shown under OBC category due to clerical error instead of his actual applied for category of Scheduled Caste. This error was corrected by the department at the time of scrutiny of documents on 19.11.2015. No rebuttal on behalf of the petitioner has been made to the above assertions of the respondents. It is, thus, obvious that respondent No.5 had applied for the post of Laboratory Technician under Scheduled Caste category and was accordingly selected and appointed in that category. Circumstances necessitating filling of the post of Laboratory Technician meant for General (BPL) and Scheduled Caste (BPL) from the respective main categories have been explained in the reply. These aspects have also not been countered by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not going to get any advantage out of the prayer made by him in that regard as he is not the applicant in BPL categories.

In view of the stand taken by the respondents, which is substantiated by the documents, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted to him. Consequently, the present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.