IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 1294 of 2009 Date of decision: 26.10.2010 Meera Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 6: Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A.G. For the respondent No.7 Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The only question involved in this case is whether the petitioner Meera Devi was entitled to grant of two marks, as she belongs to the Scheduled Caste, as alleged by her. 2. The stand of the State is that the petitioner did not submit any certificate to show that she belonged to the scheduled caste and the certificate produced by her related to her husband Pals Ram alias Paras Ram and not to the petitioner. The record had been summoned and I have carefully gone through the same and I find that the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 certificate produced by Meera Devi was in favour of her husband Paras Ram and is dated 20th April, 1999. There is no material on record to show that at the time of filing of application or interview Meera Devi produced any certificate to show that she herself belongs to the scheduled caste. Therefore, the petition is rejected. 3. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question as to whether Meera Devi belongs to the Scheduled Castes or not. This petition has only been decided on the basis that the petitioner had failed to produce her scheduled caste certificate at the time of submission of the application or interview. It is made clear that this will not affect her rights, if she actually belongs to the scheduled castes in any other proceedings. No order as to costs. 26th October, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) ™ Judge.