WP(C) 2341/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The grievance raised in this writ petition has been recorded in the orde rs passed from time to time. The prayer of the petitioner is to set aside and q uash the Annexure-I order dated 24.02.2010 by which the petitioner was informed by the UPSC that the claim of the petitioner to treat him as OBC candidate has b een rejected and instead he has been treated as general category candidate. The petitioner has sat in the Engineering Services Examination- 2009 under Roll No. 22210. There is no dispute that the petitioner being a member of the Kosh Rajba nshi community, belongs to OBC category. However, the whole controversy arose in view of the fact that the said community was conferred ST(P) status vide the Ordinance dated 27.01.96. When the Ordinance lapsed, naturally the OBC status o f the said community stood restored. In this connection, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learn ed counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1998 (1) GLT 504 (Maitrayee Mahanta & ors. vs. State of Assam & ors). Dealing with the same question, the Division Bench in the said case held that the Ordinance having been lapsed by efflux of time, it is the dut y of the Govt. to take prompt action to revive the earlier rights that were bein g enjoyed by the particular section of the people as OBC. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of t he letter dated 10.12.2010 addressed to the petitioner by the UPSC which is quot ed below: No. 1/ 4(17)/2010-E.VII UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (SANGH LOK SEVA AYOG) DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHJAHAN ROAD NEW DELHI-110069 Dated 10.12.2010 To Shri Hem Chandra Borah C/o. Sh. Ramesh Chandra Boruah Green Lane, Lowkhowa Road, North Haiborgaon, Nagaon Assam- 782002 Sub: Engineering Services Examination-2009 Shri Hem Chandra Borah, a candidate of ESE-2009 (Roll No. 22210)- regarding Dear Candidate, I am directed to refer to draw your attention on the subject noted above and to say that you (Roll No. 22210 Rank Civil-85) have erroneously been declar ed successful in ESE-2009 in General category as you do not fulfil eligibility c onditions in terms of age limit for a general candidate even after giving you 5 years relaxation as a Departmental candidate. You are, therefore, informed that due to your ineligibility, Commission’s recommendation for your appointment as a candidate of ESE-2009 in the General Category is treated as cancelled. However, your candidature in the OBC category for ESE-2009 is subject to final outcome o f the W.P.(C) No. 2341/2010 in the Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati. The error is d eeply regretted. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Under Secretary Union Public Service Commission, Phone NO. 23387402 From the above what is seen is that the recommendation in favour of the petitioner as general category candidate has been cancelled and his case will be considered as OBC category candidate once a final decision is given in this pro ceeding. The Union of India has filed an affidavit on 15.02.2011 in which it ha s been stated thus: 5. The request of the petitioner is being considered. In response to the refere nce from this Ministry, NCBC has tendered their Advice in the matter. The issue of inclusion of any caste/community in the Central List of OBCs is a policy matt er. Inclusion of any caste/community in the said List takes time because of invo lvement of the processes of inter-Ministerial consultation, resolution of dis-ag reement (if any) and seeking approval of the competent authorities. Under the ci rcumstances, it is difficult for this Respondent to submit a date by which inclu sion of Koch (possibly cited as Kosh in the order dated 24.01.2011 of the Hon’bl e Court) shall become possible. 6. Since this respondent became aware about the direction dated 07.01.2011 and 24.01.2011 of the Hon’ble Court in this case after only 8th February, 2011, it was not possible to make further submission of this case earlier. From the above, what is seen is that the respondents admit the fact that the particular Ordinance having been lapsed, the original status of OBC stands restored. However, the Union of India is yet to issue formal order in this rega rd. Mr. S. Baruah, learned CGSC submits that the formalities might take sometime . In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside and quashing the Annexure-I order dated 24.02.2010 with a direction to the responde nts, more particularly the UPSC, to treat the petitioner as OBC candidate. With the lapse of the Ordinance, the original status of the petitioner, i.e. OBC, is restored. Whatever formalities are required to be carried out by the Union of I ndia, same shall be carried out as expeditiously as possible preferably within t wo months from today.