IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP (T) No. 6489 of 2008 Decided on : 16.11.2010 Dr. Neerja ..…Petitioner. Versus H.P. Public Service Commission …… Respondent . Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : None. For respondent : Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. V.K.Sharma, Judge (Oral) The petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs vide para 7(i) and (ii):- “(i) That the respondent-Commission may kindly be directed to consider and interview the case of applicant for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Class-II in the Other Backward Classes Category. (ii) That in view of the vacancies available in the OBC category for the abovesaid post, the respondent commission may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant forthwith.” 2. In reply on behalf of the respondent, the following averments have been set up vide preliminary submission 1 and paras 3, 6 (c)& (d), (e) and (f) (i) to (v):- “1. That the applicant failed to submit latest Other Backward Class Certificate in support of her claim as Other Backward Class candidate on the date of interview. The applicant also informed the replying respondent in 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. . 2 writing that the family income of the family of the applicant has increased more than Rs. 1 lacs (See Annexure R-II), therefore, the applicant was not allowed to appear in the interview and her candidature was rejected. The Public Service Commission will be within its rights and rejecting applications, if they are not in strict compliance with the conditions and stipulations contained in the notification. The Court does not interfere with the decisions unless strong grounds are made out like malafides etc. 1982 Lab IC 1684 (1687) (DB): 1982 Ker LT 574. 3. In reply to this para it is submitted that the applicant was required to produce the latest Other Backward Class Certificate on the day of interview. She failed to submit the same, therefore, she was not interviewed and her candidature was jrected. 6(c) & (d) In reply to this para It is submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari as Other Backward Class Candidate. Accordingly she was admitted provisionally for screening test held on 27.09.1999 as Other Backward Class candidate subject to production of latest Other Backward Class Certificate. 6(e) In reply to this para it is submitted that according to the instructions of the Himachal Pradesh Govt. circulated vide letter No. PER(AP)-C-F(4)-5/94 dated 08.11.1994 (Copy attached as Annexure R-I), in which income criteria has been fixed for claiming the benefit of Other Backward Class category. The Other Backward Class Certificate submitted by the applicant has been issued in Sept. 1998. Keeping in view the instructions of the Govt. referred to above, the applicant was asked to submit the latest Other Backward Class Certificate at the time of interview from the competent authority. Morever on the day of interview, she had also stated vide letter at annexure R-II, that her family income has now increased more than 1 lacs. As such keeping in view the instructions of the Govt. referred to above, she was not allowed to appear before the 3 interview board and her candidature was rejected accordingly. 6(f) (i) to (v) The applicant failed to furnish the latest Other Backward Class Certificate though she was asked vide Annexure A-5. It is for the candidate to prove that she is eligible for the benefit of Other Backward Class. The applicant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of her own lapse particularly when the applicant was informed vide Annexure A-5 to bring latest Other Backward Class Certificate on the day of interview. It is emphatically denied that the rejection of Other Backward Class category of the applicant, by the replying respondent is illegal and unjust. On the other hand other eligible candidate cannot be made to suffer due to negligence of the applicant.” 3. In view of the above reply, it is manifest that the petitioner was not interviewed owing to lapse on her own part. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 16th November, 2010. Lsp*