CWP No.5523 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.5523 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Ritu Bala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhiber Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the merit list (Annexure P-7), released by the respondents on their website and also a writ in the nature of mandamus for considering her candidature for appointment to the post of Library Restorer against the seats reserved for Backward Class (Female) category. Learned counsel contends that petitioner applied in Backward Class (Female) Category. Despite securing higher merit position, she has not been given appointment, whereas, persons lower in merit, have already been appointed. According to learned counsel, an identical matter has been decided by a co-ordinate bench in CWP No.13154 of 2011 titled: Mamta vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 2.11.2011. Learned State counsel does not dispute that proposition CWP No.5523 of 2011 2 involved in the instant case is identical to that in Mamta’s case (supra). It is undisputed that the controversy involved in the instant case relates to same advertisement for recruitment of teachers in different subjects as the one in CWP No.13154 of 2011 wherein the following order was passed by this court on 2.11.2011:- “Petitioner-Mamta applied for the post of Math Mistress in the reserved category of Backward Class. The advertisement dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure P-3) contained following Clause 6 regarding validity of the Backward Class Certificate:- “6. The Certificate of B.C. is to be within one year from the last date of submissions and this certificate should be in terms of the letter dated 17.01.1994 and 17.8.2005 issued by the Department of Welfare, Punjab Government.” The subsequent Corrigendum issued on 27.09.2009 (Annexure P-4) further stipulated as follows:- “Condition No.6:- The Certificate of B.C. Category should not be more than 1 year prior to the last date of submission of applications and this certificate should be as per the Punjab Government, Department of Welfare Letter No.1/41/93-RS/1/209 dated 24.2.2009.” In order to fulfill the abovestated conditions contained in the advertisement, the petitioner who is daughter of Tarsem Lal relies upon a Certificate dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure P-1) certifying that “Mamta daughter of Tarsem Lal” belongs to 'Kumhar' caste which is recognized as a 'Other Backward Class'. Since the said certificate was inconsistent with Clause-6 of the advertisement and the corrigendum reproduced above, the petitioner got issued another Backward Class Certificate dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) wherein also it is clarified that Mamta wife of Mukesh Kumar belongs to 'Kumhar' caste which is recognized CWP No.5523 of 2011 3 as a 'Backward Class'. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner in the meanwhile got married with Mukesh Kumar, hence in the subsequent certificate she has been shown as wife of Mukesh Kumar. In my considered view the change of status of the petitioner from 'unmarried' to 'married' can have no other bearing except to see that her status does not get up graded to 'Creamy Layer'. This is not the case of the respondent. That being so, the Backward Class Certificate dated 01.10.2009 (Annexure P-2) has to be treated as a valid certificate entitling the petitioner to claim the benefit of reservation meant for Backward Classes. Ordered accordingly. If the petitioner is eligible and found entitled for appointment as per merit, needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.” In view of above, this petition is disposed of in the same terms as in CWP No.13154 of 2011. However, since the State has not filed any reply, it shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order if it comes to the conclusion that status of the petitioner has been upgraded to creamy layer. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 28.11.2011 'rajpal'