IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 13332/2008 Decided on:5.5.2011 _____________________________________________ Kushal Singh. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the petitioner : L.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for respondents No.1 to 4. Respondent No.5 already ex parte. Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate for respondent No.6 ___________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No.6 to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Sindasli. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has strenuously argued that respondent No.6 has failed to supply the disability 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 certificate on or before the last date prescribed for submission of applications, i.e. 20.7.2005. 3. According to Mr. B.S. Ranjan, the disability certificate was supplied by respondent No.6 at the time of interview, i.e. 10.8.2005. 4. Mr. Vikas Rathore on the basis of the reply submits that respondent No.6 has not supplied the disability certificate on the last date of receipt of applications, however, temporary disability certificate was supplied by her on the date of interview. He then argued that the disability certificate was verified on 21.11.2005 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 6. It is evident from the documents placed on record that the petitioner also suffers from disability to the extent of 40%. Detailed procedure for filling up the post of Primary Assistant Teacher has been provided as per Annexure A-4. The post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Sindasli was reserved for unreserved/ handicapped as per Annexure A-5. The last date for submission of applications as per Annexure A-5 was 20.7.2005. Petitioner had submitted the disability certificate before 20.7.2005. It is not in dispute that 3 respondent No.6 has obtained the temporary disability certificate on 30.7.2005. Thus, she could not supply the same before the last date of receipt of applications, i.e. 20.7.2005. She has supplied the same on the date of interview, i.e. 10.8.2005. Petitioner has been given 32.4 marks and respondent No.6 has been given 44.25 marks by the Selection Committee. The result was declared on 20.9.2005. Respondent No. 6 has obtained the permanent disability certificate only on 22.9.2005. Petitioner had made a detailed representation on 13.3.2006 bringing to the notice of the authorities that since respondent No.6 had not supplied the disability certificate on or before the last date of receipt of applications, i.e. 20.7.2005, her candidature was liable to be rejected. However, the fact of the matter is that respondent No.6 was issued appointment letter after the verification of disability certificate on 31.3.2006. It is well settled that the certificates/testimonials are required to be supplied on or before the last date prescribed under the advertisement/service rules and the last date of receipt of applications. In the instant case, the last date, as per Annexure A-5, for submitting certificates/testimonials was 20.7.2005. It was not open to the Selection Committee to accept the disability certificate 4 of temporary nature dated 30.7.2005 at the time of interview on 10.8.2005. The candidature of respondent No.6 could not be considered at all since he has failed to produce the disability certificate on the last date of receipt of applications, i.e. 20.7.2005. Respondent No.6 has supplied the permanent disability certificate only on 22.9.2005, which led to issuance of appointment letter in her favour. 7. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankar K. Mandal and others versus State of Bihar and others, (2003) 9 SCC 519 have held as under: “The principles culled out from the decisions of this Court (See Ashok Kumar Sharma and others v. Chander Shekhar and another (1997 (4) SCC 18; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 (5) SCC 262 and Jasbir Rani and others v. State of Punjab and another (2002 (1) SCC 124) are as follows : AIR 2000 SC 2011 : 2000 AIR SCW 1888 : 2000 Lab IC 1980 (1) The cut off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules; (2) If there is no cut off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; and (3) If there is no such date appointed ten the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority.” 5 8. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No.6 made vide Annexure A-9 dated 31.3.2006 is quashed and set aside. Respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner according to his merit position for appointment to the post of Primary Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, Sindasli on the basis of interview held on 10.8.2005 within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 5.5.2011 *awasthi*