IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) W.P.S No...lsAJ.T..../2009 PETITIONER: ./-"' ^ .i^ <' Nitin Ramekar Aged about 37 years S/o Shri Datratray Ramekar Presently working as Steno Typist in Department of Health and Family ^c\^PIanning , Raipur, 7J> v^^'^' R/°shanti vihar Colony, ^^tv\{^ ".^" ^ Danganiya, Raipur (C.G.) .•*•• VERSUS RESPONDENTS: "t¥yyr ^rf? ;''l?:!l""".^y ry ""^..i-.O-'"" f^'^^ $i?l,^?\63.^ .0'tJ"< KW \^^- J.\ c^ :,«• ^s- 1. Sfate 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.) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- 1. PARTICULARSOF HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1994 OF 2009 Nitin Ramekar Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Another (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. 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 ofJuly, 2010) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been selected and appointed on the post of Steno- Typist in the respondent department against the general quota i.e. unreserved category. Learned counsel further submits that though the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class, the petitioner is not elaiming 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 of Steno-Typist may be cancelled. 2. Shri Bhatia, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Shri Roy, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, submit that even ifthe 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 belongsto OBC category. 3. ! 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 co.ncession, privilege or benefit, is liable to produce a caste certificate, as she belongs to OBC category. In this case, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner the petitioner does not want to claim benefit on the basis of being a OBC candidate, "»»s "^ .;•• 5. The law is well settled in this respect that if a candidate claiming to 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 reserved category candidate finds place in unreserved 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 list for reserved category. (See R.K.Sabharwal & Others v. State of Punjab & Others1). 8. The Supreme Court, in RajeshKumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others , observed as under: "9. ....Where a vertical resen/ation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appolnted to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward C/ass. ...." 9. Further, in Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Tinu) & Others , the Supreme Court, while dealing with the definition of general 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 categohes irrespective of their caste, c/ass 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....P.ertaining to or designating the genus or class, as distinguished from that which charactehzes the species or individual; universal, not particularized, as opposed to special; principal or central, as opposed to ' (1995)28cc745 2 (2007) 8 SCC 785 3 (2009) 4 SCC 1 •••SSi-S.^v- <-'M- ^fSSE- local; open or ayailable to all, as opposed to select; obtaining commonly, or recognised universally, as opposed to particular; universal 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 orcommon to many." (See Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edn.)" 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the circular dated 19/05/1997 (Annexure R73) 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 astoeosts. ——-—__ Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Gowri ' Judge -;- --~T-.T-