IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9121 of 2008 Date of Decision: December 04, 2009 Amarpal Kaur .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment in backward class category for the post of ETT Teaching Fellow. In the petition, it has been pleaded that the petitioner belongs to backward class category. The certificate to this effect, issued by the Tehsildar on 22.5.2002 has been CWP No.9121 of 2008 [2] placed on record as Annexure P-4. The State of Punjab advertised 9998 posts of JBT/ETT. Copy of advertisement has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. The last date of submission of applications was 30.9.2007. It has been asserted that the petitioner fulfilled every criteria. Application form was submitted well in time i.e. on 16.9.2007 for consideration of her name against posts reserved for backward class category. Photocopy of the backward class certificate (Annexure P-4) issued in 2002 was also attached. Interview was held on 23.3.2008. In Para 6 of the petition, it is the admitted position that backward class certificate was required to be got issued within one year, therefore, the petitioner got issued a backward class certificate on 19.3.2008. Copy of the certificate has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. The petitioner appeared before the interview committee. During the course of interview, the petitioner was refused to be considered on the ground that the certificate issued on 19.3.2008 was not attached with the application form. It has been asserted that there was no indication in the advertisement in this regard and yet the respondents asked that such a CWP No.9121 of 2008 [3] certificate should have been attached with the application form. In essence, it has been asserted that candidature of the petitioner was required to be considered for backward class category for the reason that the petitioner had appended backward class certificate dated 19.3.2008. Clause 6 of the advertisement (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “The Candidates who wants to avail the reservation being members of scheduled caste/backward classes of the Punjab State, they have to produce a certificate of schedule caste/ Backward Class certificate issued by competent authority. The BC Certificate must have been issued within one year prior to the last date of receipt of application as per the instructions dated 17-1-1994 to 17- 8-2005 issued by the Welfare Department. The caste in this certificate must be clearly mentioned.” [Sic] From the clause extracted above, it transpires that the advertisement required the petitioner to have the backward class certificate issued within one year prior to the last date of receipt of application. The last date of submission of the application as per the advertisement and as mentioned above, was 30.9.2007. Clearly, the backward class certificate on which reliance has been placed, was issued subsequent to the said date i.e. on 19.3.2008. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court towards CWP No.9121 of 2008 [4] judgment rendered by this Court on 18.5.2009 while dealing with Civil Writ Petition No.11647 of 2008, `Loveljeet Kaur & others vs. The State of Punjab & others’. I have considered the judgment rendered in Loveljeet Kaur’s case (supra). At issue, before the Court was the same selection, advertisement and clause. The petition in regard to the persons who had not complied with clause 6 extracted above, has been dismissed. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the application of the petitioner was not in conformity with the conditions laid in the advertisement. The backward class certificate as required under clause 6 extracted above, had not been filed by the last date of making application. In this view of the matter, no ground for interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) December 04, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?