IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21431 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 29, 2009 Sunita Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. J.S. Verka, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to declare name of the petitioner as included in the selection list of candidates under backward class category. It has been pleaded that the petitioner belongs to backward class category. The respondents advertised 4000 posts of teachers in various subjects vide Advertisement dated CWP No.21431 of 2008 [2] 29.8.2007, on contract basis till 2011 on fixed pay. 33 posts were to be filled for Hindi mistresses from backward class. It has been asserted that the petitioner applied under general category as also under backward class category. The claim of the petitioner has been considered in the general category whereunder however, the petitioner did not come in merit whereas in backward class category, the claim of the petitioner has not been considered at all. The issue that remains to be addressed is whether the petitioner applied in backward class category and the candidature of the petitioner in that category was considered or not? In assertion of the fact that the petitioner had applied in general category as also in backward class category, learned counsel has referred to Annexure P-10 and P-11 that are two postal receipts indicating two set of documents having been sent by speed post to the respondents. On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as to how two postal receipts addressed to DPI (ODSC) Chandigarh would be an evidence of the fact that the petitioner CWP No.21431 of 2008 [3] had applied under general category as also under backward class category. The contention therefore is rejected as no presumption is attracted that would per se show application also under B.C. category. The other documents to which reference has been made, are Annexure P-13 and P-14. Annexure P-13 reads as under:- “Token No. M/280 Dated : 1.4.2008” Annexure P-14 reads as under:- “Token No : 70 (seventy) Name : Sunita Devi Father’s Name : Sh. Sudesh Kumar, Date : 11.4.2008.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the claim of the petitioner as to how the documents extracted above would indicate that the petitioner had applied to compete in general category, as also in backward class category. Learned counsel further has not been able to explain the relevance of tokens in the context of his claim and issue raised before this Court. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that documents Annexure P-13 and P-14 cannot be considered as evidence of the CWP No.21431 of 2008 [4] fact that the petitioner had applied under backward class category also. Learned counsel has laid stress on Annexure P-15 to show that it is a Form filled by the petitioner under backward class category as is evident from first line of the document. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the record in original. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that Annexure P-15 is not an application form. It is only a `check list’ of the documents submitted by the petitioner. Against category `BC’, the officials have made a note in the following terms:- “not applied in backward class category but in general under Registration. No.103676”. Learned counsel for the respondents has even produced the original application filed by the petitioner. In column No.10, `general’ has been entered against category under which the petitioner applied. Registration Number at the top of the form in red ink reads `F – 103676’. On this third issue raised on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court as the document in original indicates that indeed the petitioner not applied under backward class category. CWP No.21431 of 2008 [5] Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the persons who had checked the form in the check list namely Nand Gopal and Paramjit Singh were required to file specific affidavits in regard to the claim of the petitioner. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected out-right in so much as original record has been produced which is contrary to the stand of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Annexure R-2 filed alongwith written statement, in which the petitioner has addressed a letter dated 7.10.2008 to Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Punjab, which reads as under:- “Respectfully, it is requested that I applied for Hindi/ Female/ B.C. Category against 4000 B.Ed. teachers posts advertised by your department. My Registration No. Is F040-103676, as Sunita Devi D/o Sh. Sudesh Kumar. On 11.4.08, Your office had called to Kapurthala for this post, for Proforma Checking and Point Confirmation and I was present. My all certificates were Checked and Merit Point for Regd. No.F040103676 was confirmed to be 65.760 but even then my name is not at place in the list of selected candidates. Kindly enquire into the reason and give appropriate direction. I am attaching copies of my certificates.” It becomes evident that the petitioner asserted her right to be considered under backward class category, however, while referring to Registration No.F040-103676. Perusal of record in original indicates that Form Number CWP No.21431 of 2008 [6] 103676 has been registered under general category on the application of the petitioner that was made for consideration under general category. In Column No.10 of the Application Form, in the category column, the petitioner has declared `General’. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner indeed had applied only under general category. The candidature of the petitioner was considered in that category. The petitioner could not make it in so much as merit points of last person selected in general category are 67.705. Merit points given to the petitioner, however, are 65.760. The petition is totally frivolous in so much as no relevant document has been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner indeed had applied under backward class category. The documents on which reliance has been placed, are dehors the issue raised in the petition. The petition is without any merit and is dismissed with costs Rs.7,000/-. (AJAI LAMBA) October 29, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? CWP No.21431 of 2008 [7]