IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 350/2011 Reserved on: 25.8.2011 Decided on: 1.9. 2011 _____________________________________________ Anju Devi. …Appellant. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Appellant : Mr. Naresh K. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. A.G. and Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 4. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 2887/2010. 2. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal are that that the appellant and respondent No.5 appeared for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Banjal, Tehsil and District Chamba. The interview was held on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 9.8.2007. Appellant was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre, Banjal. The appointment of appellant was challenged by respondent No.5 before the Deputy Commissioner. He dismissed the same on 7.10.2008. Respondent No.5 preferred an appeal before the learned Divisional Commissioner. He allowed the same on 22.5.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 22.5.2010, appellant preferred CWP No.2887 of 2010. Learned Single Judge dismissed the same on 22.7.2011. 3. Core issue involved in this Letters Patent Appeal is: whether respondent No.5 belongs to category of scheduled caste and had annexed the scheduled caste certificate with the application for consideration for the post of Anganwari Worker. According to the appellant, respondent No.5 was required to produce the original scheduled caste certificate before the Selection Committee. Learned Single Judge, in order to ascertain whether respondent No.5 had filed any certificate establishing that she belongs to scheduled caste category and she had annexed the certificate with the application, had summoned the record on 29.6.2011. The record was produced by the State and respondent 3 No.5 has also produced the original scheduled caste certificate before the Learned Single Judge. 4. It will be apt at this stage to refer to clause 6 of the notification dated 11.4.2007, which reads thus: “6. Applications The desirous candidates will have to apply on plain paper to the Child Development Project Officer (concerned) on or before the last date (to be specified in the notice) to receive the application along with the photocopies of all the requisite certificates from authorized officers.” 5. It is evident from the language employed in clause 6 of the notification dated 11.4.2007 that the candidate is only required to submit the application on or before the last date alongwith photocopies of all the requisite certificates from authorized officer. It is nowhere mentioned in clause 6 that the candidate is required to produce original certificates alongwith the application or at the time of the selection. Respondent No.5, as noticed above, has annexed the photocopy of scheduled caste certificate and has also produced the original scheduled caste certificate before the Court. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant that respondent No.5 does not belong to scheduled caste category. The rigours, which are required to be followed by the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe candidates 4 while submitted the applications etc. are to be relaxed taking into consideration the historical reasons. These candidates are not familiar with the procedure the manner in which the applications are to be submitted seeking public employment. The employer must always show sympathetic attitude as far as candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes are concerned. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ganu Ram versus Rikhi Ram Kaundal and others, AIR 1984 SC 1513 have held as under: “5. Section 33 of the Act deals with the topic of presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination. Sub-section (2) of the said section which alone is relevant for our present purpose reads : "(2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved, a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular caste or tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State." It is not disputed that in the nomination form filed by the appellant and his proposer, no written declaration had been made specifying the caste to which the appellant belongs and the area in relation to which that caste is a Scheduled Caste of the State. But it is common ground that along with the nomination paper the appellant had filed as an annexure thereto a certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, 5 Ghumarwin certifying that the appellant belonged to a Scheduled Caste namely ‘Lohar’. The said certificate was appended to the nomination paper obviously with the sole purpose and intention of making it known to the Returning Officer and all others concerned that the appellant is filing his nomination as a candidate belonging to a Scheduled Caste namely 'Lohar' and it was in proof of that assertion and for eliminating doubt or controversy in the matter that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's certificate was produced. The High Court has taken the view that since Section 33 of the Act requires that the nomination paper must be in the prescribed form and Form 2B is a self-contained one, the filing of any enclosure or certificate along with the Form is not contemplated. We are unable to agree with this view. When the nomination paper has been made in the prescribed form there is no legal prohibition against the other requisite particulars being furnished in a separate paper appended to the form instead of writing them out in the form itself This is very often done in the matter of filing returns of Income-tax, Wealth-tax etc. In such cases the annexure appended, to the form should be treated as part of the nomination paper. We are therefore of opinion that the certificate which was produced by the appellant as an annexure to the nomination paper has to be treated as forming part of the nomination paper and' the declaration contained therein that the appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste of 'Lohar' must be understood and treated as a declaration by the appellant in the nomination form within the meaning of sub-sec. (2) of Section 33. We have to remember that we are dealing with nomination papers pertaining to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who, for well known historical reasons, are unfortunately, extremely backward socially, economically and educationally in comparison with other sections of our people. In such a 6 context we consider that the Court has to place a liberal and benevolent interpretation on the provisions contained in Section 33 (2) of the Act rather than adopt a narrow, rigid, technical and purely literal construction. In S. Sivaswami v. V. Malaikannan, (1984) 1 SCC 296: (AIR 1983 SC 1293) which was also a case arising under the Act, one of us speaking on behalf of a three-Judge Bench of this Court had occasion to make the following observations which are apposite to the present context also: "In this context it is necessary to remember that nearly 90 per cent of the electorate in this country consists of illiterate and uneducated rural folk totally unacquainted with the intricacies of the rules and technicalities of procedure pertaining to elections. Even if the best of endeavour is made to explain to them such complicated rules and procedures they may not be capable of grasping and fully understanding all the implications and actually carrying them into effect while exercising their franchise. If the right conferred on the people to choose their representatives to the State Legislatures and the Parliament through the process of free and fair elections is to be meaningful the will of the illiterate and unsophisticated voter expressed through a marking on the ballot paper which though not strictly inside the column of the particular candidate is clearly indicative of the identity of the candidate for whom the vote is cast has to be respected and given its full effect." 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove and the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme 7 Court in the judgment cited hereinabove, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 1.9. 2011 *awasthi*