IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13154 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.11.2011 Mamta ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. Alka Chatrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. **** SURYA KANT, J.(Oral) 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 CWP No. 13154 of 2011 [2] “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 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. 02.11.2011 (SURYA KANT) 'ravinder' JUDGE