IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.1897 of 2008. Decided on:October 15, 2008. Ms.Ambika Kumari …..Petitioner. VERSUS State of H.P. & Ors. …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : Mr Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr R.K.Bawa, Advocate General with Mr.J.K.Verma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Jagdish Bhalla, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioner has challenged the selection of opposite party No.5 for appointment and training of the post of Police Constable. It has been emphatically contended on behalf of the petitioner that opposite party No.5 could not have been considered a candidate under the category of Integrated Rural Development Programme (herein-after referred to as ‘IRDP’) for the reason she could not produce the certificate at the time of interview on 14 and 15th June, 2008. It has also been 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. …2… submitted before us that opposite party No.5 was in fact selected at waiting list No.1 as candidate against general category. In spite of the fact that at the time of application, the petitioner placed on record her certificate belonging to IRDP category, therefore, the question before us is whether the petitioner failed to furnish the certificate regarding reserved category or due to omission and inaction of the authorities she could not produce the certificate in question, in light of the fact that initially the petitioner had submitted certificate of reserved category but it expired at the time of interview. It has been pointed out by the learned Advocate General that respondent No.5 has submitted a certificate along with application dated 21.7.2007 as General IRDP candidate. Therefore, it is apparent that on the date of application respondent No.5 had certificate to claim to be considered against the reserved category. The Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur vide letter dated 31.5.2008 called upon the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents in original. The petitioner appeared before the Interview Board with original documents along with certificate with respect to the fact that she belongs to IRDP category where it was found that this certificate was valid for a period of six months from the date of issue. Therefore, on her request the Board granted time to …3… produce certificate before the finalization of the result. The result was announced on 17.6.2008 by the time she was not able to produce the certificate. Therefore, at the time of declaration of result, her case was only considered as General category candidate. However, her IRDP certificate issued on 14.6.2008 before the result was declared and countersigned by the BDO on 17.6.2008 was faxed to the authority concerned on 18.6.2008 at 13.03 hours in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur. In such circumstances, she was selected against the reserved category of IRDP candidate. We examined the fact whether at any stage there is any lapse on the part of opposite party No.5 to produce the document with respect to her being belonging to IRDP category. We find that at the time of application, petitioner had submitted such certificate only, therefore, she was called for interview against the said category. Thereafter, the petitioner had applied well in time for renewal, if due to one or the other reason or the lapse of the authorities, the certificate was made available to her though signed on 14.6.2008 but countersigned on 17.6.2008 the day the result was declared. There is no mistake of respondent No.5 and the fact remained that she remained the reserved category candidate even before the result was declared. Therefore, the authority has taken a human ground to show interference and declaring her result. We are also of the …4… considered opinion that respondent No.5 should not suffer due to non-action / negligence of the authorities and in such circumstances no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. ( Jagdish Bhalla ), C.J. October 15, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)