Sidharthy vs State Of H.P. & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:­

"(i) That the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 contained in Annexure A­11 may kindly be quashed and set­aside.

(ii) That the list vide which 22 persons have been shown as selected for training for the post of Patwari and name of the applicant has not been included in the said list deserves to be quashed and set­aside.

(iii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to include the applicant for training against the post of Patwari as she is eligible in all respect to impart training for the post of Patwari".

Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition as as under:­

Process was initiated by the Department concerned for recruiting Patwaris. For this purpose, a joint examination was conducted to fill up vacant posts in the Districts of Himachal Pradesh. In the process so initiated, the petitioner also participated. The examination was held somewhere in the year 2013. Petitioner applied for being appointed against the category of Ex­servicemen. Though she was successful in the recruitment process, yet appointment was not offered to her on the ground that she could not produce a certificate to the effect that she was an Ex­servicemen and as a consequence thereof she was not sent for initial training which candidates who are selected as Patwaris, have to undergo before they are actually offered appointment. Petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No.1737 of 2014, titled as Sidharthy Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 24.07.2014 in the following terms:­

" Leaving all questions open, we dispose of the present petition, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.2, as prayed for, within a period of two weeks, within further direction to the said respondent to consider and decide petitioners' cases sympathetically, within a period of one month thereafter. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the Court, if need so arises subsequently. Needless to add, if the order is not in favour of the petitioners, the authority shall assign reasons while deciding the same, which shall be communicated to the petitioners".

Thereafter, the competent authority has passed order dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A­11), relevant portion of which is being reproduced hereinbelow:­

" Petitioner presented herself in person on 30.09.2014 and submitted a written prayer stating the reasons as to why she found herself eligible for the post of Patwari candidate. I have gone through the contents of her prayer as well as procedure associated with the selection of Patwari candidates. The DLR conducted a joint examination to fill up the posts of Patwaris lying vacant in all the Districts of Himachal Pradesh. In District Chamba 49 posts were vacant including 18 posts reserved for ex­servicemen quota candidates. Petitioner applied under ex­servicemen quota and successfully qualified the examination. Upon receiving merit list prepared by DLR, petitioner was issued a letter No.CBA­ SK­18(10)/95­2013­481­529 dated 22.02.2014 to present herself with original relevant certificates/ documents so that she could be issued selection letter before initiating the process of training schedule meant for Patwari candidates. The petitioner got selected under ex­ servicemen quota, therefore, she was required invariably to present ex­servicemen certificate. She could not present required ex­servicemen certificate. In order to get selected under a particular category, the candidate is required to fulfill the conditions prescribed for that particular category. The petitioner applied for and got selected in the category of posts reserved for ex­ servicemen quota candidates. She claims that she is a ward of ex­servicemen, hence eligible for the posts reserved for ex­servicemen. As ex­servicemen quota and ward of ex­servicemen quota are two different categories and she could not present the desired certificates. Therefore, she was found ineligible under the category of ex­servicemen and she was not considered for selection under the ex­servicemen quota".

Aggrieved by this Order, present petition stands filed by the petitioner.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a ward of ex­servicemen. But it is also not in dispute that petitioner herself is not an ex­servicemen. The posts in issue against which she applied, were meant for ex­servicemen and not ward of ex­servicemen.

In this background, this Court does not finds any infirmity with the order which has been passed by the competent authority (Annexure A­11), dated 31.10.2014, because when the petitioner was not an ex­servicemen and she could not produce a certificate to the effect that she was an ex­servicemen, appointment could not have been offered to her against the post of Patwari reserved for ex­servicemen. It is not the case of the petitioner that the posts in issue were reserved for the ward of ex­servicemen and despite her being the ward of ex­servicemen, appointment has been denied to her. Therefore, as admittedly, the petitioner did not belong to the category for which posts were reserved, this Court finds no infirmity in the act of the respondent­authority of not offering appointment to her.

In view of the observation made hereinabove, as this Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.