IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 1142/2008 Decided on:23.3.2010 ________________________________________________ Neelam Kumari. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _____________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1yes For the petitioner : Mr.Ashwani Pathak, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.R.K.Sharma, Sr.Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Rajinder Dogra, Addl. Advocate General. _____________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral) Applications were invited vide Annexures:A-4 and A-5 for filling up 19 posts of constables for District Lahaul & Spiti. A bare perusal of Annexures:A-4 and A-5 reveals that two posts were reserved for female candidates i.e. one post for Scheduled Caste candidate and another for Scheduled Tribe. The applications were to be submitted by 25th July, 2007. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. She submitted application for being considered against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. She was called for ground test. She 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?yes . 2 qualified the same. However, interview letter was not issued to her which was to be held on 5th June, 2008. She filed a petition before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the interview which was held on 5th June, 2008. However, her candidature was considered against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Mr. Ashwani Pathak has strenuously argued that as per Annexure:A-5, out of two posts, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. He further argued that once the selection process has been initiated by the respondents, the same could not be changed midway. Mr. R.K.Sharma, learned Sr.Addl. Advocate General has argued that before the finalization of recruitment process, the State Government had decided to make the recruitment on the population percentage of District instead of Tehsil. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. It is admitted position that out of two posts initially advertised as per Annexures:A4 and A5, one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. She was called for the ground test. However, it appears that thereafter the State Government had decided to make District as the unit for reservation instead of Tehsil. It is 3 settled law by now that once the recruitment process commences, the same has to be completed and no changes can be effected midway. The petitioner had applied under the Scheduled Caste category. Her candidature could not be considered against the Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of changed criteria of working out the reservation on district-wise instead of Tehsil. The petitioner has acquired a right to be considered against the post reserved for Scheduled Caste category as per Annexure:A5. The respondents were bound to complete the selection process as per Annexures:A4 and A5 by considering the candidature of the petitioner against the Scheduled Caste category and not Scheduled Tribe category. The action of the respondents of changing the category of the petitioner from Scheduled Caste to Scheduled Tribe on the basis of new criteria is declared bad in law. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner against the Scheduled Caste category and if necessary by creating supernumerary post within a period of eight weeks from today. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. March 23,2010(R)