IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. L.P.A. No.: 8 of 2009. Decided on: 15.06.2009. Shri Narinder and others. … … Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. R.M. Bisht and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate Generals for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.4. Deepak Gupta, Judge (Oral): This Letter Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th January, 2009 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP (T) No.1768 of 2008. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the State of Himachal Pradesh issued an advertisement dated 28.6.2007 inviting applications for the posts of Constables. In this appeal we are only concerned with the recruitment of Police Constables in Solan District. Out of the total 128 posts in this District, 115 posts were for male Constables and 13 for female Constables. In the advertisement it was clearly stated that reservation will be provided for various categories i.e. SC/ST/OBC/Sportsmen/Ex-Servicemen, Home Guards and wards of Freedom Fighters etc. as per instructions of the Government. Applications were invited in the format which forms part of the advertisement. Column 8 of the format only required the candidates to mention whether they belong to SC/ST/OBC. There was no requirement in this format requiring the candidates to give any further indication that they belong to other categories such as Sportsman, Ex-serviceman, Home Guards, Wards of Freedom Fighters, IRDP families etc. 3. The appellants before this Court were selected under the IRDP (General) category. Their selection was challenged by respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as “the original applicant”) who filed O.A.No.1809 of 2008 before the learned H.P. State Administrative Tribunal at Shimla. The case of the original applicant was that he had gathered information under Right to Information Act and according to the information supplied to him the present appellants had not applied under the category of IRDP and for the first time they had produced the proof of their belonging to IRDP family only at the time of interview. On abolition of the Tribunal the said application was transferred to this Court. The learned Single Judge after going through the entire - 3 - pleadings as well as record came to the conclusion that the respondents had not applied under the IRDP category and therefore their appointment was illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same was accordingly quashed. The learned Single Judge held that since the appellants have not disclosed at the time of submissions of applications their category, they could not be considered under the IRDP category. 4. We had called for the entire record of the case and have perused the same. Shri Negi, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the advertisement does not require the candidate to give his further sub- category of Sportsmen, Ex-Serviceman, Home Guard, Ward of Freedom Fighter, IRDP etc. etc. This submission of Shri Negi is correct and no fault can be found with the same. However, on perusal of the record we find that after the candidates were called for interview and ground test which is in the nature of physical efficiency test. This ground test was held on 6th August to 8th August, 2007. All the candidates were again required to fill in certain forms. The three appellants again filled in these forms. Column No.7 of this form reads as follows:- “Whether SC/ST/OBC/IRDP/Wards of Freedom Fighters/ Sportsman/Ex-Serviceman/Home Guards.” At this stage, at least the candidates were required to indicate under which sub-category they were applying. All the appellants have indicated that they were applying under the general category. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in holding that at a later stage, i.e. at the time of interview the appellants could not change their category and claim to be considered under the IRDP category. - 4 - 5. We, therefore, find no error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and the present appeal is accordingly dismissed. The pending CMP, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. (Surinder Singh) Judge. June 15, 2008. (sck).