’ CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION S NO. O [2008 S ot o N T G VERSUS / 1. 'The Secretary(Examination) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Shankar Nagar Raod, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Pin -492001 / 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Ministry of _ Home Affairs, Government Aof Chhattisgarh, Raipur (c.G.) ' ,x'f S PETITIONER " m : Ravindra Kuarsingh, S/o Shri P.. Singh, Pl. N. — 218, New Housing Board ‘ Colony, Near ew Water ank, Devri—khurd, Bilaspur (C..) RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIéN/I OF INDIA FOR ISSUE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS IN THE FORM OF APPROPRIATE ORDER ' ‘ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILAS‘PUR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 805 0f2008 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri K.R.Nair, Advocate with Shri D. Minj, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.C.Shanna, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Shn‘ A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.2 ORDER (ORAL) \r Inassed on 293; day ofOetober, 2609) Challenge in this petition is to the letter dated 30““ January, 2998 (Annexure P/7) whereby the candidature of the petitioner for Assistant Engineer (Civil) Examination, 2006, was rejected on the ground that the / petitioner has failed to produce the permanent caste certificate issued'hy the competent authority indicating the fact that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class (for short ‘OBC’) category. It is indisputable-that pursuant to the notification dated 09m February, 2007, published in “Rojgar Aur Niyojan" on 03rd of January, 2007, the petitioner made an application for selection on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Public Works Department and Rural Development Department. In column No.7 ofthe application (Annexure R/1-3), the petitioner has marked ‘4’, which is for the OBC category. Against the column No. 9 of Physically Handicapped (for short ‘PH’), the petitioner has marked as ‘Y’. Against the column No. ll, the PETITIONER Ravindra Kumar Singh. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The Secretary (Examination) Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission & another. #n 314$ petitioner has claimed relaxation in age being the resident of the State of Chhattisgarh. In the written examination, the petitioner was placed a1 serial No. 18 as is evident fi‘om the select list (Annexure P/9). According to Shri Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of select list for interview, the petitioner’s name hgured in unreserved category (PH) quota. However, the petitioner was thereaher not permitted to appear in the interview on the ground that the petitioner has not produced his permanent caste certificate as the petitioner claimed himself to be under the OBC category. Shri Nair further submits that if the name of the petitioner figures in the unreserved category list, the respondent No. 1 was bound to consider the .. petitioner in unreserved categorylirrespective of the fact that the petitioner belongs to OBC or to any other reserved category and as such, no caste certificate was required in case of the petitioner. Shri Nair further contends that the requirement of production of domicile/ / ; r certificate was at the time of interview as is evident from the call letter dated 1St January, 2008 (Annexure P/é). The petitioner has produced the domicile certificate before the interview committee but still he Was not permitted to participate in the interview. t3,» Shri Shanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, on the other hand. submits that admittedly, if the petitioner finds his place in unreserved category, he has to be treated as unreserved for the purpose ' of interview and selection thereon. In the present case, though the petitioner in his application has put tick mark under OBC category for i‘ \ consideration but has not produced any document in support of the q . c a $1 3’2, S- i1. N M same, his candidature was lightiy rejected for interview. He iiuiher submits that the petitioner has failed to produce domiGile ceitiftcate also at the time of interview. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, pewsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is a trite law that if a reserved category candidate finds place in unserved category i.e. general, he has to be treated in accordance with their merit in the select list. They cannot be thrown back in the list for reserved category. (See R.K.Sabharwal & Others v. Stare ofPunjab & Othersl) Admittedly, the petitioner was selected at serial No. 18 against the PH quota in unreserved category. Even the impugted letterdated 30‘“ January, 2008 (Annexure P/7) rejecting the candidature does not indicate that the candidature ofthe petitioner was rejected on the ground of non-production of domicile certificate. Thus, the contention ofthe respondent No. 1 in respect of non-production of domicile certificate does not merits acceptance. It is further stated by the learned counsel appearing for the. parties that one post under the PH quota in unreserved category is still vacant, as per select list dated 13m February, 2008 (Annexure P/l 0). The Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajbsthan Public Service Commission & Othersz, observed as under: “9. ....Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates M 1 (1995) 2 scc 745 3\; 2 (2007) 8 scc 735 \n \\ \ belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non- reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non- reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved fot fespeetive Backward Class. ....” 10. Further, in Bz’hari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Tinu) & Othersj, the Supreme Couit, while dealing with the definition of general category, observed as under: “40.....The expression “belonging to the general category” wherever employed means the seats or omces earmarked for persons belonging to all categories irrespective of their caste, class or community or tribe. The unreserved seats euphemistically described as general category seats are open seats available for all candidates who are otherwise qualified to contest to that office. 41. The word “general” is derived from Latin word genus. ...... It relates to the whole kind, class, or order. . ..Pertaining to or designating the genus or class, as distinguished nom that which characterizes the species or Amit 3 (2009) 4 scc 1~ ”\i‘ \ *‘x w individual; universal, not particularized, as opposed to special; principal or central, as opposed to local; open or available to all, as opposed to select; obtaining commonly, or recognised universally, as opposed to particular; umversal or unbounded, as opposed to limited f comprehending the whole or d1rected to the whole as distinguished hem anything applying to or deSigted for a” portion only Extensn/e or common to many (See Black ’s Law Dictionam 6th EdnJ” ll. For the reasons. stated hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law against the general category (PH) for selection as well as for appointment thereon, if he is found successiiil. No order asto costs. / / Sdl— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge I