CWP No.16493 of 2008 : 1: In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 28.05.2009 Kavita Rani Vs. State of Punjab and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.RK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is covered by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in CWP No.4242 of 2007 (Gyatri Jyoti Vs. State of Punjab and others) on 30.09.2008, wherein the following observations have been made:- “ A perusal of condition 10 discloses that the the candidates are required to possess the prescribed educational & professional qualification for the post applied, by the last date of submission of applications, which the petitioner possesses. That condition relates only to educational and professional qualification and cannot be read into the requirement of submission of reservation Certificates, which, in our considered opinion, will CWP No.16493 of 2008 : 2: only be governed by condition No.5 of General Conditions (reproduced hereinabove) whereby the candidates like the petitioner belonging to reserved categories are permitted to submit the required certificates before issue of appointment letters. It cannot be disputed that one acquires caste by birth and a caste certificate is only a recognition of such status of the holder of that certificate. It is not the case of respondents that the petitioner did not possess the Backward Class Certificate or she as not a Backward Class or she had not submitted her Certificate along with the application form. The only reason given is that the Certificate was an old one and not in terms of 2005 Instructions. The respondents have, however, not been able to show either from the written statement or at the time of arguments that any condition exists either in 2005 Instructions or in the Advertisement, which informs the candidates that they must produce the revised B.C. Certificate in terms of 2005 Instructions along with their application forms. It is, therefore, inconceivable as to how the candidates like the petitioners could have anticipated the aforesaid requirement. It is further quite possible that inspite of candidates applying for revised/latest B.C. Certificate CWP No.16493 of 2008 : 3: immediately after becoming aware, yet be denied the issuance of required certificate by the authorities within a reasonable time. Such a situation cannot operate to the disadvantage of the candidates. We feel that in such a situation the respondent authorities should have considered them for appointment by treating them as eligible under B.C. Category, subject to their producing the required certificate within a reasonable time. Still further, the respondent authorities had an option to take recourse to note 3 appended to the advertisement which provided that on their certificates being found deficient, the appointments are liable to be declared null and void ab initio. Therefore, the action of the respondents in considering the petitioner ineligible in the Backward Category for want of revised B.C. Certificate, as per 2005 instructions by the last date of submission of application, is unreasonable and arbitrary. In view of the above discussion, we find that the petitioner has been illegally denied consideration for selection and appointment as Lecturer in English in B.C. Category in violation of the equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 o the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we allow CWP No.16493 of 2008 : 4: the writ petition, quash the impugned order dated 23.1.2007 (Annexure P/12) and direct the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as Lecturer in English, being higher in merit than respondents 3 to 5. The respondents shall displace the candidate(s) lowest in merit in Backward Class Category. Respondents, shall however, be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidate (s) against other vacancies, if available. The petitioner shall be entitled to notional service benefits with effect from the date the candidates lower in merit than her was appointed. It is further clarified that if in the process of appointment of the petitioners in the aforesaid connected writ petitions, appointment of already appointed candidates is to be cancelled and such candidate(s) was/were not impleaded as respondents in the connected writ petitions, then their appointment(s) shall be cancelled after following due process of law. Needless to say that the respondents will be at liberty to accommodate such displaced candidates against any posts lying vacant. All the writ petitions stand allowed in the above terms.” CWP No.16493 of 2008 : 5: In view of the above discussion the petitioner be also considered for selection/appointment against the post. This application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. Mr.Chahal submits that the SLP has been filed against the judgment of Division Bench. It is, thus, observed that this order shall remain subject to outcome of the SLP. 28.05.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO