IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 1515 of 2008. Decided on: 06.07.2010. Kalam Dev. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. Anand Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. None for respondent No. 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Respondent-State has initiated the process for filling up the post of Police Constable in District Shimla in the pay scale of Rs.3120-5160/-. Petitioner belongs to SC (IRDP) category. Petitioner submitted application for appointment to the post of Constable in SC (IRDP) category. He qualified the physical efficiency test as well as written examination. Thereafter, he was called for personal interview vide letter dated 25.05.2008. 2. The case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that when he went to Police Lines Bharari on 14th June, 2008, as mentioned in Annexure P-1, he was told that the interview has already been held on 11th June, 2008. He made a representation to the Superintendent of Police, bringing to his notice that he was 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?.Yes. mislead by the date mentioned in Annexure P-1. He also made representation to the D.I.G., Northern Zone on 25.06.2008. 3. The case of the respondents, precisely is that due publicity was made by giving the dates category-wise for the purpose of interview in vernacular newspapers, i.e., ‘Amar Ujala’, ‘Punjab Kesari’, ‘Divya Himachal’, Dainik Bhaskar and besides this, the petitioner was also informed of the date of interview vide Annexure P-1, dated 25.05.2008. 4. Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that a bare perusal of Annexure P-1 reveals that date of interview is mentioned as 14th June, 2008 and the respondents were bound to interview the petitioner on the said date, as a special case. 5. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that petitioner himself is responsible for not appearing in the interview on 11th June, 2008 and in these circumstances, he could not be considered for appointment as a special case. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 7. It is not disputed that the petitioner belongs to SC (IRDP) category and has qualified the physical efficiency test as well as written examination. He was issued call letter for personal interview on 25.05.2008. It is apparent that the date of interview mentioned in Annexure P-1 is 14th June, 2008. The interviews were held on 11th June, 2008. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioner was not interviewed. Petitioner belongs to SC (IRDP) category and hails from interior area of District Shimla. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that vernacular newspapers, i.e., Amar Ujala’, ‘Punjab Kesari’, ‘Divya Himachal’, Dainik Bhaskar are not readily available in this remote area. In these circumstances, the petitioner has no prior knowledge of the interview as per these newspapers. He was solely dependant on the information supplied to him vide Annexure P-1, dated 25.05.2008. The date of interview mentioned in this letter is 14th June, 2008. The representations made by the petitioner have not been heeded to in right perspective. The authorities in question were dealing with a candidate who had qualified the physical efficiency test as well as written examination and was always ready and willing to be interviewed. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner. There is also no reason why the petitioner who had qualified the physical efficiency test as well as written examination, will not appear in the interview. 8. Mr. P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General submits that the result was declared on 14th June, 2008 and the candidates selected had already joined the training course at Junga. He also contended that due to delay and laches, the petitioner cannot be interviewed at this belated stage. The Court is conscious of the fact that selection process had culminated on 14th June, 2008 when the result was declared. However, in the present case, the petitioner approached the learned erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application on 26.06.2008. The notice was issued by the learned Tribunal on 1st July, 2008. The respondent-State has filed the reply on 01.07.2010. In these circumstances, the plea of Mr. P.M. Negi that there is delay and laches in the instant case, cannot be accepted. The candidates belonging to SC/ST categories are to be dealt with extra care and their legitimate rights to seek Government employment cannot be defeated on hypertechnical grounds. 9. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to hold special interview for the petitioner under the category of SC (IRDP) and if he is found suitable, he shall be considered for appointment to the post of Constable from the due date and he shall also be imparted proper training. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge July 06, 2010. (bhupender)