CWP No. 14018 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 14018 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.08.2010 Satbir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Ms. Gursharan K. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J.(ORAL) The petitioner, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in English, as guest faculty on the basis of merit list prepared by respondent No.2. The prayer has also been made for taking action against the officials by launching criminal prosecution of the guilty officials, for not giving appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner, being a graduate from the Kurukshetra University, with Degree of B.Ed from Punjabi University, Patiala, and Master's Degree in Philosophy from Chaudhary Devi Lal University, Sirsa, applied for appointment to the post of Lecturer as guest faculty for Government schools of Union Territory of Chandigarh. The petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in OBC category along with necessary documents on 11.7.2010. On the basis of application and documents submitted by the CWP No. 14018 of 2010 -2- petitioner, he was allowed to participate in the selection process. As per merit list his name appeared at serial No.1, in the OBC category. The petitioner was informed, that the caste of the petitioner i.e. Dhiman was not recognized as OBC, in the Central list of Backward Classes and his case could not be considered for being appointed against OBC category. The petitioner was, therefore, asked to bring the necessary certificate for his appointment. It was only on 22.7.2010 that the petitioner obtained a certificate of OBC category, for being considered for appointment. The appointment was denied to the petitioner, as he did not have requisite certificate for consideration of his claim in OBC category. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that along with the application the petitioner had attached the OBC certificate, showing him to be belonging to Dhiman Class, which was recognized as OBC by the Haryana Government, though not shown in the Central list, which recognizes Khati as Backward Class. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that both these castes have been shown as synonyms in the list. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted case of the petitioner, that the certificate attached with the application form, could not be accepted, to treat the petitioner in OBC category, as the caste mentioned in this certificate was not recognized. It was only on 22.7.2010 that the petitioner brought certificate of eligibility, for being considered in the OBC category. The applications for empanelment were invited. The last date CWP No. 14018 of 2010 -3- of submission of applications was 31.3.2011. The certificates were to be submitted upto 11.7.2010, whereas, the certificate obtained by the petitioner showing him eligible was issued only on 22.7.2010. In case the date given in Annexure P-7 is correct, then the petitioner could not claim appointment, as he had not attached the relevant certificate with the application form. The certificate issued on a date subsequent to the date fixed for submission of original certificates could not be considered, as it is well settled law, that eligibility of the candidate is to be seen on the date of submission of application form and not thereafter. The pleadings of the petitioner itself show, that the petitioner was not in possession of the original certificate of OBC on the date of application, as it has been averred in the petition that he was orally asked to bring the certificate which could show that the synonym of 'Dhiman' was 'Khati'. The certificate attached with the writ petition is shown to be prior to making of application form. Therefore, an attempt was made to mislead the Court by mentioning the wrong date of issuance of OBC certificate. The petitioner, therefore, has not approached the Court with clean hands, therefore, he is not entitled to discretionary relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. For the reasons stated, finding no merit in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 13, 2010 R.S.