IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.S No... '../2009 PETITIONER: *M ^: iJi ^•>^ ;< Pragati Ramekar Aged about 33 years D/o Shri Datratray Ramekar Presently working as Assistant Grade-III in General Administration Department, ntP" y-'^11 ^f»»w \vs-' ^^ ..-•'" Raipur, R/o Shanti Vihar Colony, Danganiya, Raipur(C.G.) VERSUS RESPOJ^DENTS; ^SsS^ ?<''>..;>-'"~"»<.:v:^, ^' 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary General Administration Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) 2. High Power Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through Vice President cum Director, Adim Jati Anusandhan Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, State of Chhattisgarh, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Premises, Raipur (C.G.) IETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAFQR &SUANCB OF _APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND IERTIORARIAND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIQNSlr AFff, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ; BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1993 OF 2009 Pragati Ramekar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri SatishK. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Government Advocate and Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 27th day of July, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-111 in the respondent department against the general quota i.e. unresen/ed category. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class, the petitioner is not claiming any relief, concession or privilege on the ground of being OBC candidate, however, the State Government relying on a circular dated 19/05/1997 (Annexure R/3) insists on submission of social status certificate of the petitioner, failing which it is informed that her selection to the post ofAssistant Grade-111 may be cancelled. 2. Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submit that even if the petitioner does not want to claim any relief, concession or privilege on the basis of her caste i.e. OBC, then also the petitioner is liable to produce a caste certificate, as she belongs to OBC category. 3. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 4. The only issue involved in the case on hand is that if a person is selected against the general category and is not claiming any concession, privilege or benefit, is liable to produce a caste certificate, as she belongs to OBC category. In this case, according to the learned Gounsel appearing for the petitioner the petitioner does not want to claim benefit on the basis of being a OBC candidate. leitW^, ,'A^ ''%. r--. ^ ^sSSS0& ^ I/' .^ 5. The law is well settled in this respect that if a candidate claiming td be OBC, SC & ST seeks benefits of reservation in future he/she may be required to produce a social status certificate to that extent. 6. In the present case, it has been categorically stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has not claimed any benefits, privileges and concession on the ground of being a OBC candidate. 7. It is a trite law that if a resen/ed 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 listfor reserved category. (See R.K.Sabharwal & Others v. State of Punjab & Others1). The Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others , observed as under: "9. ....1/1/here a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward C/ass, 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 for respective Backward C/ass. ...." Furi:her, in Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Tinu) & Others , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the definition ofgeneral category, observed as under: "40.....The expression "belonging to the general category" wherever employed means the seats or offices 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 distingiiished from that which characterizes the species or individual; universal, not particularized, as opposed to special; principal or central, as opposed to ' (1995)23cc745 2 (2007) 8 SCC 785 3 (2009) 4 SCC 1 local; open or available t6 all, as opposed to select; obtaining cominonly, or recognised universally, as opposed to particular, universat or unbounded, as opposed to limited; comprehending the whole or directed to the whole, as distinguished from anything applying to or designed for a portion only. Extensive or oommon to many. " fSee Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn.)" 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the cireular dated 19/05/1997 (Annexure R/3) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24/02/2009 (Annexure P/1) passed in respect ofthe petitioner is quashed. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order asto costs. — -—— -—~— Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Gowri Judge fc ^