IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 42 of 2008. Reserved on: 14.12.2010. Decided on: 06.01.2011. __________________________________________________________ Ved Parkash. … Petitioner. Versus Himachal Pradesh University and another. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Bhatia, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Rajiv Sharma, J. : In sequel to advertisement No.4 of 1999, dated 29.11.1999, petitioner was selected for the post of Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry. He was issued appointment letter on 30.6.2001. His appointment was challenged by respondent No.2 by way of CWP No.927 of 2001. Same was disposed of by this Court on 22.4.2002. Thereafter the petitioner was called upon vide Annexure R-6, dated 16th October, 2001 to explain his position since he has furnished two certificates of belonging to O.B.C. category; one issued by Tehsildar, Amb and the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - other issued by the Executive Magistrate, Amb. The petitioner did not clarify his position and consequently, Annexure R-7, dated 24th May, 2002 was issued whereby the appointment to the post of Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry in the University offered to the petitioner on 30.6.2001 against the post reserved for O.B.C. category was cancelled/withdrawn. 2. Mr. Vijay Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was fully eligible to be considered against the post of Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Department of Chemistry on the basis of certificate of O.B.C. furnished by him. Mr. Vinod Thakur and Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocates have supported the issuance of letter dated 24.5.2002 and have also defended the appointment of respondent No.2 to the post of Lecturer vide letter dated 24.5.2002. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as Lecturer in Government College, Amb. The post of Lecturer is Class-I post. A bare perusal of Annexures R-1 to R-4 makes it abundantly clear that the Class-I posts are excluded from the category of O.B.C. since they fall in the creamy layer. The purpose of following the criteria of “Creamy Layer” is to ensure that the posts are filled-up by the needy persons. The person who is already working as Class-I, does not fall in O.B.C. category and falls in creamy layer criteria. The petitioner has furnished two certificates of belonging to O.B.C. as well, dated 14.12.1999 and 5.9.2001, issued by the Tehsildar, Amb and Executive Magistrate, Amb respectively. He was requested by the University vide - 3 - letter dated 16.10.2001 to reconcile the same. He has failed to do so. It is in these circumstances that Annexure R-7, dated 24.5.2002 has been issued whereby the appointment letter issued to petitioner on 30.6.2001 has been withdrawn by the respondent-University. Since the petitioner was holding Class-I post, i.e. Lecturer in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, he was not entitled to the benefit of O.B.C. category as per criteria of “Creamy Layer”. The petitioner had been given opportunity as per Annexure R-6 to explain his position and consequently, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice. The competent authority has issued Annexure R-10 in favour of respondent No.2 and he has also filed affidavit, annexure R-11. His father had been working in Postal Department in Himachal Pradesh for the last 36 years. Himachali Bonafide/Other Backward Classes certificate has been issued in his favour by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Mandi. 5. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. January 06, 2011. (sck).