§ Appellant ReyoW M ' Respondents Pih' Haw IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT .BILASPUR The Secretary (ExaminatiOn) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1) Ravindra Kumar Singh S/o Shrl P S Slngh Plot No 218 New Housmg Board Colony, Near New Water Tank Dem Khurd Bilaspur (C G ) ‘ The Mmlstry of Home Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur (C G ) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH ACT 2006 2),. State of Chhattlsgarh Through Writ A eal No. 44 x {I I 0 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGAH, BILASPU R R i ivision Bench: Hon’ble Shri SuniliKumar Sinha 8s. D Hon’ble Shri Radhe' Shyam Sharma, J J 1 w ‘ Writ Appeal No. 41 of'2010 The Secretary (Examination) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Vs. Ravindra Kumar Singh & Another ORDER For consideration Sd/- SUNIL KU'MAR SINHA Judg HON’B’LE SHRI JUSTICE RADHE SHYAM SHARMA Q WAMC, / r n R 3 g ‘xémw Post for Order :[L/10/2011 ‘r N Sd/— // /10/2011 Sdl— 7‘ ,' adhe Shyam Sharma Jude > x“ WJ e ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR I K I Hon’ble Shri Sunili Kumar Sinha 85 Hon’ble Shri Radhé Shyam Sharma, J J i i ~ § Writ Appeal No. 41 of12010 ‘ Division Bench: The Secretary (Examination) Chhattisgalih Pubnc Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Versus Ravindra Kumar Singh S/ o Shri P.S. Singh, Plot No. 218, New Housing Boai‘d Colony, Near New Water Tank, Devri Khurd, Bilaspur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) APPELLANT RESPONDENTS 1 (Writ Agpeal under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Apical to Division Bench), Act 2006) Appearance: Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.R. Nair, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General for the State / respondent No.2. ORDER (l2. .1o.2011) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. . (1) Secretary, Chhattisgarh blic Service Commission, has ‘ challenged the ‘validity of order dated 20th of October, 2009 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 805/2008 by the Writ Court. ‘ 2 Lg" Writ Appeal No. 41 of2010 (2) By the impugned order, the writ Court, after allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No.1, hers directed the appellant to consider the case of respondent No.1 :on merits in accordance with law for his selection and appoii’itment against general category (PH), if his is found successful. l (3) Respondent No.1 applied for selection to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department and Rural Development Department. In application form, he marked himself as candidate of OBC category and he also marked himself as Physically Handicapped (PH). Respondent No.1 was placed at serial No. 18 in the select list. In fact, his name figured in unreserved category (PH) quota. He was not permitted to appear in the interview on the ground that he did not produce ‘ his permanent caste—certificate as he claimed to be under the OBC‘ category. *\ A 1’s (4) It was contended before the writ Geurt that if the name of respondent No.1 figures in the unreserved category list, the ‘appellant was bound to consider him in. unreserved category irrespective of the fact that he belongs to OBC or to any other reserVed category and as such, no caste-certificate was required in his case. It was also contended that the requirement of production of domicile-certificate was at the time of interview as was evident ' from the call letter dated 1st of January, 2008; though respondent No.1 has produced the domicile—certificate before the Interview \ 3 1%”? Writ Appeal No. 41 of 2010 i Committee, but still he was not permitted to participate in the interview. (5) Counsel for the Public Service Comimission contended before the writ Court that if respondent N0.l finds his place in the unreserved category, he had to be treated as unreserved for the purpose of interview and selection thereon. (6) The writ Court also held that if (a reserved category candidate finds place in unreserved category i.e. general, he had to be treated in accordance with [merits in the select list and he cannot be thrown back in the list for reserved category. The writ Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition in the above terms. (7) Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that respondent No.1 had offered candidature under OBC category and if he failed to produce requisite proof in that behalf, his candidature was rightly rejected. i,“ (8) ’We have heard, learned counsel for- the parties at length and have 1also perused the records of the writ appeal and the writ petition. (9) Respondent No.1 was placed at serial No.18 against the PH quota in unreserved category in the select list. This is an admitted position. Mr. Sharma argued that since respondent No. 1 could not produced permanent caste-certificate at the time of interview, l ‘ 4 (W Writ Appeal No. 41 of 2010 therefore, his candidature was rejected which is clear from x x x r Annexure—P/ 7. (10) Mr. K.R. Nair, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, has argued that even if the candidature of respondent No.1 was rejected as OBC Candidate on account of non—production of requisite certificate, his candidature ought to Vf have been considered as a general (PH) candidate as undisputedly l 4’, his name appeared at serial No.18 of PH quota in unreserved K category. He referred to the-judgment of Mehar Afroz Qureshi —Vs- Statehf Chhattisgarh & Ann, AIR 2010 Chhattigarh 91(D.B.). (11) In Mehar Afroz Qureshi (supra), the petitioner had applied as OBC candidate. Since OBC certificate produced by the petitioner was not acceptable for the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, her . candidature in OBC category was rejected. This Court held that the above rejection, by itself would not disentitle the petitioner for consideration under general category in absence of any Rule made in this regard. (12) In case on hand, learned counsel for the appellant could not show any such Rule that on rejection of the candidature as OBC . category the candidature of respondent No.1 could not have been i considered against the general category. If a reserved category , candidate finds place in the merit list of unreserved category i.e. i general, he has to be treated in accordance with his merit in the j select list. If such principle would not be applied, the meritorious l I * 5 [§ WriyAppeal No. 41 ofz‘olo candidate's, though belonging to reserved category and otherwise L selected on account of their merits would be denied chance on the technical ground that their candidature for reserved category was not acceptable. (13) On the above facts and circumstances of the case, we do not flnd any infirmity in the View taken by learned Single Judge while V disposing of the writ petition in the above manner after applying at the ab‘ove principles. \‘6 (14) ’l‘he appeal, therefore,'is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (15) No order as to cost. X [if > N in, I“ . fg'» Sd/- A? ‘ .J i ' 5dl~ I y SUNEKUMARsINHA' i a‘dhe ‘Shyam sfi,$r'i?i3'ii l f I l - Judge ~ Judge vatti '