Himachal Pradesh High Court
Anjali vs State Of H.P. & Others on 18 November, 2019
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.2927 of 2019
Decided on: 18.11.2019
.
Anjali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?
For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate, with
Mr.Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr.Ashok Sharma, Advocate General with
Mr.Ranjan Sharma, Mr.Adarsh K. Sharma,
Ms.Ritta Goswami, Mr.Ashwani Sharma and
Mr.Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates
r General.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice (Oral)
Respondent No.2 issued Recruitment Notice dated 3rd March, 2019, inviting applications for the post of Constable (Female). In terms of the said Recruitment Notice, the applicants were required to submit their online applications from 30 th March, 2019 and the last date for submitting the applications was 30.4.2019. As per the requirement of Recruitment Notice, the petitioner applied for the said post and submitted her online application on 10.4.2019 under ST/BPL category. On processing the application, the respondents issued roll number, allowed the petitioner to participate in the ground test. After having successfully completed the ground test, she was given ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 20:23:46 :::HCHP 2 permission to appear in the written test and, as such, she also qualified the written test.
.
2. It is also the case of the petitioner that she was the only candidate who applied under the ST/BPL category. Another fact highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner claimed her case under the ST/BPL category by producing a BPL certificate (Annexure P-4) under BPL No.10- 37.43. The said certificate was issued on 01.10.2018 for a period of six months. Since the BPL certificate got expired on 01.04.2019, the petitioner was not in a position to immediately submit a renewed BPL certificate. However, she made an application for the renewal of the said BPL certificate to the Authority concerned and on consideration of the application, the certificate has been renewed and fresh certificate has been issued on 11.04.2019 under the same BPL No.10-37.43. The renewed certificate was produced by the petitioner at the time of interview held on 4.10.2019. Though the petitioner has successfully qualified all the tests and is entitled to be considered for appointment/selection, but, her candidature has been rejected on the ground that the BPL certificate, which was produced alongwith the online application, had expired on 1.4.2019.
::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 20:23:46 :::HCHP 33. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary for the .
reason that the petitioner, who claimed herself to be considered under the ST/BPL category, though her BPL certificate expired on 1.4.2019, but, she produced the renewed/fresh certificate under the same BPL number and claimed herself for consideration under the ST/BPL, hence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the respondents is contrary to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. In support of his submission he relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 1693; Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754; and Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission, reported in (2017) 11 SCC 276.
4. On the other hand, Mr.Ashwani Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that as per the Recruitment Rules, if incomplete applications are made, the same shall stand rejected and the system is also programmed in such a way that applications without any relevant document are automatically rejected. It is further submitted that merely ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 20:23:46 :::HCHP 4 permitting the petitioner to appear in the ground test as well as written test, does not make her eligible for selection to the post of .
Constable.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and also perused the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
6. The facts are not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the certificate produced, alongwith the online application, which got expired during the selection process, should have been considered for the purpose of selection or not. At the cost of repetition, it is relevant to point out certain facts.
7. The online applications were required to be submitted from 30th March, 2019 and the last date for submitting the applications was 30th April, 2019. In between, the BPL certificate of the petitioner got expired on 1.4.2019. Probably, what is required to be considered is whether the petitioner made application under the ST/BPL category and whether she belongs to the said category or not. Though the certificate expired on 1.4.2019, but, the petitioner was not in a position to submit the renewed BPL certificate. Since the certificate had expired on 1.4.2019, i.e. during the currency of last date of filing the ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 20:23:46 :::HCHP 5 application, strictly speaking the application was to be rejected, but though the petitioner had made application for renewal of the .
certificate, normally the office will take time to process the application for the purpose of issuance of certificate.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner was classified under the BPL category as per the guidelines made by the respondents/State Government. It is noticed that sufficient time was granted for submission of applications but, the petitioner has submitted the application alongwith BPL certificate which expired during the currency of the last date of submitting the applications and her candidature has been rejected on this ground alone.
Though the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected only on the basis of expired BPL certificate only, therefore, we have to take a pragmatic view. The petitioner is undoubtedly a Scheduled Tribe and belongs to Below Poverty Line category. In the instant case, the things which are required to be considered in a pragmatic way are that: (i) a girl has applied for the post of Police Constable; (ii) she is a Scheduled Tribe; and (iii) more importantly she belongs to Below Poverty Line category. Therefore, by taking the pragmatic view, we are of the opinion that the petitioner who was permitted by the respondents by issuing roll number to appear in the ground test and also in the written test has to be ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 20:23:46 :::HCHP 6 considered for selection to the post because under the reserved category only one person is available i.e. the petitioner. Non-
.
production of BPL certificate at appropriate time being a trivial issue is not being taken note of.
9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is a girl belonging to a backward class and also falls under the Below Poverty Line category, we are inclined to grant a relief to her. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to process the case of the petitioner, consider the same and pass appropriate orders, if she is not disqualified or ineligible for any other reason.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
( L. Narayana Swamy), Chief Justice ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua), Judge November 18, 2019 ( vt ) ::: Downloaded on - 20/11/2019 20:23:46 :::HCHP