IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. C.W.P. No. : 1110 of 2009. Reserved on: 22.12.2009. Decided on: 07.01.2010. _________________________________________________________ Shri Anil Guleria and another. …Petitioners. -Versus- Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Selection Board and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioners. : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 and 2. : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General. For respondents No. 3 to 5. : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, J.: Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1 has issued advertisement No. 10/2007 on 14.02.2007, whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. The minimum essential qualification prescribed for the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector is that the candidate should possess a Bachelor’s Degree or its equivalent from a University recognized 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. by the State/Central Government. 11349 candidates have applied for the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. The criteria for filling up the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors was also laid down in the advertisement dated 14.02.2007. It was divided into three parts which read thus: 6. Excise & Taxation Inspector 1. Objective types screening test of General English of 10+2 standard, General Hindi of Matric standard and General Knowledge-200 marks. This test will be of qualifying nature and score of this test will not be taken into account for computing the merit. 2. Subjective test in General English and General Hindi languages including précis writing, essay writing etc. = 200 Marks. 3. Interview of those who qualify the subjective test. = 30 Marks Petitioners submitted their applications for considering their candidatures. The screening test was held on 13.11.2008. The subjective test of those candidates who have obtained the minimum marks in the screening test was conducted on 25th December, 2008. The candidates who qualified the subjective test were called for personal interview conducted w.e.f. 28.01.2009 and 29.01.2009. Petitioners have qualified the screening test, subjective test and were called for personal interview on 29.01.2009 respectively. They have not been found suitable by respondent No. 1, however, respondents No. 3 to 5 were found suitable and were offered appointments to the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors vide Annexures R-1 to R-3 dated 11.02.2009. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5 to the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors is against the norms prescribed. He then contended that respondents No. 3 to 5 have applied under O.B.C.(un- reserved) and O.B.C.(I.R.D.P.) categories, however, they have been appointed against the General category seats, though they have not obtained minimum 141 marks in the screening test prescribed for the General category. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5 have supported the appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. Petitioners have applied under the General category. They have qualified the screening test, subjective test and, thus, were called for personal interview. Respondent No. 3 has applied under the category of O.B.C. (un-reserved). He has secured 109 marks in the screening test. The cut off marks for O.B.C.(un- reserved) category were 132. He has not obtained the minimum marks required in the screening test for O.B.C.(un-reserved). He was allowed to appear in the main examination, interview and was subsequently appointed against the General category post. Respondent No. 4 has also applied under O.B.C.(un-reserved) category. He has obtained 132 marks in the screening test. He has qualified subjective test and appeared in the interview. He has been appointed against General category post, whereas the cut off marks for the General category candidates in the screening test were 141. Similarly, respondent No. 5 has applied under O.B.C.(I.R.D.P.) category. He has secured 127 marks in the preliminary examination. The minimum cut off marks for O.B.C.(I.R.D.P.) category were 109, however, he has also been appointed against the post meant for General category candidates. Respondents No. 3 to 5 were appointed on 11th February, 2009 against the General category. Respondent No. 3 has not secured even minimum cut off marks necessary in the screening test for O.B.C. (un- reserved). Respondent No. 4 has though obtained minimum marks in the screening test, i.e., 132 for O.B.C. (un-reserved), but the candidates under the General category were required to secure 141 marks in the screening test. Respondent No. 5 has secured minimum cut off marks meant for candidates belonging to O.B.C. (I.R.D.P.), i.e., 109, but he has not obtained 141 marks required for General category candidate in the screening test. Respondents No. 4 and 5 though have secured minimum marks meant for O.B.C.(un-reserved) and O.B.C.(I.R.D.P.), but have not secured 141 marks meant for General category in the screening test. In these circumstances, they could not be appointed against the posts meant for General category candidates. Their appointment is illegal. Only those candidates could be appointed against the General category, who have secured minimum 141 marks in the screening test. The marks of screening test could not added while determining the final merit list, as projected by the respondent- State. Accordingly, in view of this, the writ petition is allowed. The appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5 notified on 11.02.2009 are quashed and set aside. No costs. (R.B. Misra) Acting Chief Justice (Rajiv Sharma) Judge January 07, 2010. bhupender