Seema Kumari vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—An advertisement has been issued by respondent No. 3 for filling up the posts of T.G.T. (Arts) on 5th July, 2002. Petitioner also submitted an application for considering her 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. candidature for the post in question under General (IRDP) category. Petitioner qualified the written test. However, the interviews were not conducted by respondent No. 3. C.W.P. No. 3513 of 2009 was filed in this Court seeking direction to respondent No. 3 to conduct the interviews. Consequently, on the basis of the directions issued by this Court, the interviews were held by respondent No. 3 on 16.08.2011. Petitioner has been considered in General (Un-reserved) category instead of I.R.D.P. category, since she has failed to produce I.R.D.P. certificate at the time of interview, i.e., 16.08.2011. Mr. Pushpender Kumar, learned vice counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner was required to be considered under I.R.D.P. category and not under General (Unreserved) category. He has placed strong reliance upon Annexure P-4, dated 10.08.2011.

Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr. Rajender Thakur, learned vice counsel for respondent No. 3 have strenuously argued that the petitioner has not produced the I.R.D.P. certificate at the time of interviews on 16.08.2011.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.

The advertisement was issued on 5th July, 2002. The written test was held on 29th September, 2002. Petitioner qualified the written test. The interviews were held on 16.08.2011. Mr. Vikas Rathore, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of the Court to condition No. 8 of Annexure P-1, which reads thus:

In case you belong to IRDP/BPL category you should bring the necessary certificate in the prescribed format duly countersigned by the Competent authority. To claim that you belong to the IRDP/BPL family you should also bring a copy of Parivar Register where your name is entered in the IRDP/BPL family. As the IRDP/BPL Certificate is valid only for six months from the date of its issue, the certificate (s) should be valid on the last date fixed for the receipt i.e. as on 10.08.2002 of application for the post as well as on the date of interview.

It is evident from this condition that the petitioner was required to produce the I.R.D.P. certificate at the time of interview. The candidature of the petitioner was considered provisionally under the category of I.R.D.P (Roll No. 18464). The result has already been declared on 21.02.2011. Since the petitioner has failed to produce the I.R.D.P. certificate, her candidature has been considered under General (Un-reserved) category. The name of the petitioner could not be recommended since she was lower in merit. In view of this, there is no illegality in the action of respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner has been considered under General (Un-reserved) category instead of I.R.D.P. category. The selected candidates have already been offered appointment letters by respondent No. 3 and they have been duly appointed. The petitioner has not impleaded the selected candidates as party. The petition is, thus also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.