IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No. 1326 of 2010 (O&M) L.P.A. No.463 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: October 11, 2010 Amarpal Kaur …..Appellant versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Dr. Sushil Gautam, Advocate for the appellant Mr.N.K. Sanghi, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab .. RANJAN GOGOI , J. : (Oral) C.M.No. 1326 of 2010: After hearing learned counsel for the parties, delay of 45 days in filing the appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No.463 of 2010: Heard. By an advertisement issued in the month of September-2007, 9998 posts of JBT/ETT were advertised. Under Clause-6 of the advertisement, a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Backward Class was required to produce a certificate of the competent authority to the effect that the candidate belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Backward Class and such certificate should have been issued within one year before the last date of receipt of application. The last date for submission of applications L.P.A. No.463 of 2010 - 2 - was 30.9.2007. The appellant-writ petitioner did not submit the said certificate which, however, was produced by her on 19.3.2008 i.e. date of interview. Her candidature was not considered on the aforesaid basis, giving rise to the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. The learned single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that the requirement of Clause-6 of the advertisement had not been met by the appellant-writ petitioner and, therefore, rejection of her candidature was correct. Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner has drawn the attention of the court to a Government Order dated 15.12.1996 (Annexure A-2) to show that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes are only required to mention the said fact in the application form and necessary certificates and testimonials can be submitted after the selection is over by the selected/wait- listed candidates. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid Government Order reflects a policy decision and, therefore, the advertisement issued is not in conformity with the said policy. Hence, according to learned counsel, the candidature of the appellant-writ petitioner was wrongly rejected. The contents of the advertisement issued in the present case, pursuant to which the appellant-writ petitioner submitted her application, are unambiguous and clear. A candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste/Backward 2 L.P.A. No.463 of 2010 - 3 - Class was required to submit a certificate from the competent authority which must not be more than one year old from the last date of submission of application i.e. 30.9.2007. Admittedly, the appellant-writ petitioner did not fulfil the said requirement. Notwithstanding the contents of the Government Order dated 15.12.1996 which has been placed before us, if the specific advertisement in question contained an unambiguous clause requiring the candidates to comply with the same, the candidature of a candidate who had failed to comply with the specific requirement of the advertisement had to be rejected. The respondents having done so and the learned single Judge not having found any fault with the same, we are of the view that this appeal does not deserve admission. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) JUDGE October 11, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE 3