IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2275 of 2009. Decided on: April 1, 2010 Balbahadur Singh ….. Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Petitioner : Mr. Dalip Sharma, Advocate, For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The simple issue to be tackled in this Writ Petition pertains to the question as to what is the date on which qualification is to be reckoned in the matter of recruitment. Short facts. The Director General of Police issued recruitment notification dated 14th November, 2008 for recruitment of 701 posts of Contsables for 4th India Reserve Battalion. The last date of submission of the application was 20th December, 2008 as far as 105 reserved posts for Home Guard Volunteers were concerned. The Home Guard Volunteers have been given the reservation as per the Government orders issued from 2 time to time. As per the order dated 18th April, 2002 the required experience was three years. Initially the quota was only 5% of the vacancies. The same has been enhanced to 15% by order dated 18th August, 2002. In the order dated 10th September, 2002 issued by the Government which is produced as Annexure R-1 it has been clarified that the Home Guard Volunteers who seek recruitment to the post of Constable in Himachal Pradesh Police should possess two years of experience for consideration for recruitment against the quota fixed for the Home Guards. Uptil it was three years. The petitioner was enrolled as Home Guard Volunteer on 14th February, 2007. According to the petitioner, he too had submitted his application and participated in the process of selection and secured highest marks in that category. He was issued call letter Annexure P-8 dated 20th May, 2009. Clause 6 of the letter reads as follows:- “Candidate claiming for the post reserved for Home Guard should bring experience certificate of minimum two years issued by Commandant of the concerned Home Guard Battalion.” According to the petitioner, this experience need only be the experience gained by him as on the date of issuance of call letter since he had already been permitted to participate in the selection process without insisting for experience certificate. But it has to be seen that the selection process is the same for all the candidates. As far as the posts reserved for Home Guard Volunteers are concerned, one of the qualification itself is two years’ experience. Qualification for a post is to be determined with respect to the last date of the submission of the application for a post. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have the qualification of two years experience as on the last date of submission of the application, namely, 3 20th December, 2008. He would acquire that qualification only by 14th February, 2009. Annexure P-8 is only a call letter requesting the petitioner to produce the required certificate regarding his eligibility. The eligibility has to be determined with respect to the last date of submission of the application. Since the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility criterion of two years experience as on last date of submission of application, he is not eligible to be considered for appointment against the reserved quota of Home Guard volunteers. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the quota reserved for Home Guard Volunteers, he has come out as most meritorious candidate and that there are still vacancies available in the reserved quota since there were no eligible candidates, even after accommodating the party respondent. It will certainly be open to the petitioner to point out this aspect to the Government since the Government is free to take appropriate decision in a given contingency of the candidates not available to fill up the required quota and the quota lying vacant. In the event of the petitioner thus approaching the first respondent by way of an appropriate representation, we make it clear that it will be open to the Government to consider the same, in accordance with law, untrammeled by the observations and findings in this judgment. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 1, 2010 (Justice R.B. Misra), (rks) Judge.