Himachal Pradesh High Court
(By Sh.Anup Rattan vs H.P.Public Service Commission on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Satyen Vaidya
REPORTABLE/NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3305 OF 2019
Between
SANDEEP KUMAR S/O SH. PURSHOTAM CHAND,
R/O VILLAGE NAGARADA, POST OFFICE AND
TEHSIL NADAUN, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
(BY SH.ANUP RATTAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
r ...PETITIONER
1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
THROUGH SECRETARY (HOME) TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA-2.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
3. DIRECTOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
4. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF
POLICE CONSTABLES, DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN SHRI N. VENUGOPAL,
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
CENTRAL RANGE, MANDI-CUM-CHAIRMAN
DRC DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.
5. SECRETARY, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, NADAUN,
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, H.P.
6. ANSHUL S/O SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR
THROUGH SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR
SELECTION OF POLICE CONSTABLES
DISTRICT HAMIRPUR, THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN SHRI N. VENUGOPAL,
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:53:32 :::CIS
- 2-
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
CENTRAL RANGE MANDI-CUM-CHAIRMAN,
DRC DISTRICT HAMIRPUR,
HIMACHAL PRADESH. ....RESPONDENTS.
.
(SH. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL,
WITH SH. RAJINDER DOGRA, SR. ADDL. A.G.,
SH. VINOD THAKUR, SH. HEMANSHU MISRA,
SH. SHIV PAL MANHANS, ADDL. A.GS., AND
SH. BHUPINDER THAKUR, DY. A.G. FOR
RESPONDENTS No. 1 TO 4.
SH. PANKAJ SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT NO. 5.
MS. MEERA DEVI AND SH. HEMAND THAKUR,
ADVOCATES, FOR RESPONDENT NO. 6.)
RESERVED ON: 13.08.2021.
DECIDED ON: 17.08.2021.
__________________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, passed the following:
ORDER
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following substantive reliefs:
i) That rejection of candidature of the petitioner vide letter dated
31.10.2019 (Annexure P-10) may be quashed and set-aside.
ii) That respondent No.4 Selection Committee be directed to interview
the petitioner and take further action to complete the selection
process.
iii) That provisional selection of private respondent No.6 may be
quashed and set-aside.
- 3-
iv) That the petitioner be declared as selected candidate as total marks
of petitioner is more than the grand total marks of respondent No.6
including marks of interview.
.
v) That discrimination on the basis of place of residence with respect to
IRDP/BPL be declared ultra vires to Constitution of India.
2. Respondent No.2 issued recruitment notice dated
3.3.2019 for the post of Constables. Applications were invited from
eligible candidates in prescribed online format. The last date for
3.
submission of application was 30.4.2019.
The recruitment notice specifically prescribed that the
candidate should be possessed of requisite certificates valid as on
the date of submission of application form. It was further provided
that all necessary and relevant documents (in original) copies of
which were uploaded by the candidates while submitting online
application should be produced alongwith a set of photocopies by the
candidates before admission to the personality test. Failure to
submit original documents or any documents not found in order, as
per requirement, would result in immediate disqualification of the
candidate.
4. The case of the petitioner is that in response to
recruitment notice dated 3.3.2019, he applied under OBC category
with sub-category of IRDP. His application was within time. As per
specific averment of petitioner, he uploaded the copies of
.
matriculation certificate, copy of 10+2 certificate and copy of OBC
certificate alongwith application form. According to petitioner, he
had submitted the BPL certificate dated 16.6.2017 issued by the
Secretary, Nagar Panchayat, Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. by
uploading the same. Petitioner has placed on record a copy of said
document as Annexure P-1.
5.
It is also the case of petitioner that he qualified written
test by securing 52 marks and also qualified physical test in which
he was awarded two marks. Petitioner received call letter dated
21.10.2019 for appearance on 31.10.2019 at 7.00 a.m. at Police
Line, Hamirpur for suitability-cum-personality test alongwith all the
documents (in original) with one attested photocopy each, which
were uploaded by the candidate while submitting online application
form.
6. As contended by petitioner, he appeared for suitability-
cum-personality test on 31.10.2019 and was asked to produce the
valid BPL certificate. He alleges to have procured the requisite
certificate on the same day and produced before the authorities
concerned. The document so produced by the petitioner on the day
.
of suitability-cum-personality test is Annexure P-2 with petition.
7. The grievance of petitioner is that the authorities refused
to admit the certificate, provided by him, to be a valid certificate and
consequently issued rejection slip rejecting his candidature on
31.10.2019. The rejection was on the ground that he could not
produce the valid IRDP certificate for the relevant period. According
to petitioner, his rejection is wrong and illegal.
8. Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 in their replies have
specifically submitted that petitioner did not produce valid and
relevant IRDP certificate pertaining to the year 2018-19 and, as
such, his candidature was rightly rejected. It has also been stated
that the certificate uploaded by petitioner alongwith his online
application was not valid during the relevant period as the same was
dated 16.6.2017. According to respondents No.1, 2 and 4, the said
certificate was not fulfilling the requirements of recruitment notice,
therefore, the rejection of the candidature of petitioner was justified.
9. Reply submitted by other respondents stated that
petitioner belonged to BPL/IRDP category even on the date when he
.
submitted his online application Evidently such statement has been
made only on the basis that the family of petitioner was found to be
eligible for BPL certificate in a survey conducted in 2004-2005.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have
also gone through the records of the case.
11. It is not in dispute that at the time of submission of online
application, petitioner uploaded a document to support his claim
under BPL/IRDP category. This document was issued by the Urban
Development Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh as
identity card for Urban poor under the signatures of Secretary, Nagar
Panchayat, Nadaun. Though this certificate bore the date
"16.6.2017" under the signatures of Secretary, Nagar Panchayat,
Nadaun, but the same pertained to the year 2004-2005 as suggested
by the replies filed by respondents No. 3 and 5. Requirement of
recruitment notice was that the certificate of category under which
candidate was to apply should be valid on the date of submission
of online application. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner
produced another BPL certificate dated 31.10.2019 before the
authorities at the time of appearance for suitability-cum-personality
.
test.
12. The precise question that arises for determination is
whether the document Annexure P-1 dated 16.6.2017 was valid
compliance of the recruitment notice. It goes without saying that in
present petition this Court has not to decide the general status of
the petitioner as BPL/IRDP member, what is to be decided is whether
the petitioner had complied with the requirement of recruitment
notice or not?
13. The BPL certificate dated 31.10.2019 relied upon by the
petitioner itself shows that the validity of such certificate is only six
months. It being so, the onus lies on the petitioner to show that the
BPL/IRDP certificate down-loaded by him at the time of submission
of online application was valid on the said date. Firstly, the
document down-loaded by the petitioner with his online application
to prove his BPL status was not a BPL certificate and secondly, the
same was issued on 16.6.2017 on the basis of the survey conducted
in 2004/2005. It is worth noticing that in Annexure P-1, age of the
petitioner is written as 14 years, which cannot be said to be
petitioner's age in the year 2017 when this document was allegedly
.
issued. In 2019, the petitioner was 20 years old, so by no stretch of
imagination, he could be only 14 years in 2017. On the basis of
material on record, we have no hesitation to say that petitioner was
not in possession of a valid BPL/IRDP certificate on the date of
submission of his online application in response to the recruitment
notice dated 16.6.2017.
14.
It is no more res integra that non-submission of requisite
certificate by a candidate in accordance with the requirement of
advertisement/recruitment notice is sufficient ground to reject the
candidature. Reference can be made to judgment dated 8.10.2020
passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4276 of
2020, titled Monika Koti vs. H.P.Public Service Commission,
wherein identical proposition has been dealt with by placing reliance
on the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bedanga
Talukdar vs. Saifudaullah Khan and others (2011) 12 SCC 85
and Karnataka State Seeds Development Corporation Ltd. and
another vs. H.L. Kaveri and others, 2020 (3) SCC 108. Recently
in Deepak Yadav and others vs. Union Public Service
Commission and another, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has again
reiterated the aforesaid legal position.
.
15. Petitioner in support of his case has placed reliance upon
the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP
No. 126 of 2009 titled Anjana Kumari vs. Manorma Devi and
others, decided on 09.03.2011, judgment passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in LPA No. 55 of 2011, titled Nand Lal
Bhardwaj vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on 22.12.2015,
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
14531-32 of 1996 titled Seema Kumari Sharma vs. State of H.P.
and another, judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in CWP No. 2927 of 2019, titled Anjali vs. State of H.P. and
others, decided on 18.11.2019 and judgment passed by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No. 3370 of 2020, titled
Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of H.P. and others, decided on
22.2.2021.
16. With due deference to all these judgments, in our
considered view, these do not help the cause of petitioner. The
judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No.
- 10 -
126 of 2009, is against the case of the petitioner. Considering the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Seema Kumari
.
Sharma's case, learned Single Judge held as under:
"8. The Apex Court in this judgment has not laid down any hard
and past preposition of law. In the case before the Apex Court,
there were no private competing parties. Here the petitioner has
been selected and is working against the post of Anganwari
Worker and her rights will be directly affected if such document
is relief upon. It was the duty of Manorma Devi, respondent
No.1 to have placed the proper documents before the Selection
Committee at the time of selection and if she failed to produce
such documents at that stage, she cannot be permitted to fill up
the lacunae at a later stage."
Judgment in LPA No. 55 of 2011 titled Nand Lal Bhardwaj's case,
was altogether different preposition where IRDP certificate, on the
basis of which petitioner therein had obtained employment, was
discovered to be not genuine and the issue was whether the writ
Court in holding the IRDP certificate to be false was within its
competence without pleadings to that effect. As regards the reliance
on Seema Kumari Sharma's case, placed on behalf of petitioner,
as noticed above, learned Single Judge of this Court in Anjana
Kumari's case had already observed that the judgment in said case
did not lay down any hard and fast preposition of law. It was also
- 11 -
noticed that there was no private competing parties in the case of
Seema Kumari Sharma.
.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed
reliance on the judgment passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in CWP No. 2927 of 2019, titled Anjali vs. State of H.P. and others.
Perusal of this judgment reveals that the same is clearly
distinguishable from the case in hand. In that case again there was
no private competing parties. The BPL certificate of the petitioner
therein had expired only during the period when the date for
submission of online application was not over and the petitioner
therein had submitted his application for renewal of BPL certificate
even prior to the expiry of the date for submission of online form.
Lastly, another judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
CWP No. 3370 of 2020, titled Sukhvinder Singh vs. State of H.P.
and others, has been pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner,
however, the same also does not have application in the facts of the
case. In that case, the issue was with respect to validity of Other
Backward Classes certificate produced by petitioner therein before
authorities. In that context, it was held that since petitioner
- 12 -
undisputedly belonged to "Labana" community which was
recognized as "Other Backward Classes" in the State of Himachal
.
Pradesh, therefore, the status of petitioner therein would not change
in absence of a certificate.
18. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in
the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no
order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan)
Judge
17th August, 2021 (Satyen Vaidya)
Judge
(GR)
