CWP No. 7969/2010 31.03.2011 Present: Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. M. Bisht, Dy. A.G with Mr. Vinod Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the respondents For the post of a Language Teacher, petitioner was called for interview vide letter dated 29.11.2008 (Annexure P-3). At the time of interview, he was to submit various documents including his certificate being an OBC candidate. It is not in dispute that petitioner submitted his certificate dated 6.3.2006 (Annexure P-4) to the effect that he belongs to “Bhat Community” which is recognised as a Backward Class in Himachal Pradesh by the State Govt. This certificate was not accepted by the authorities for the reason that as on the date of interview, the validity of the certificate, which is for two years, had expired. Noticeably, prior to the date of his interview petitioner had applied to the appropriate authorities for renewal of the same, which is also evident from the letter (Annexure P-5). The matter of renewing the certificate kept on hanging in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirmaur, H.P. Petitioner sent reminder and pursued the matter but however, respondent authorities issued fresh certificate only on 10.11.2009. Subsequently petitioner also stands appointed as a Language Teacher on the basis of the recommendations made by the Himachal Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Board, Hamirpur. However, this appointment is on contract basis and not on batch- wise basis. It has got nothing to do with the process of selection initiated in the year 2008 . 2. Be that as it may be, fact of the matter is that petitioner was eligible for being considered for appointment as a Language Teacher on batch-wise basis on the strength of Annexure P-3. Keeping in view the affidavit dated 15.2.2011 filed by the Tehsildar- cum-Executive Magistrate, Shillai, Distt. Sirmaur, it cannot be disputed that petitioner belongs to OBC category and also does not fall within the limit of creamy layer. Record reveals that petitioner was issued certificate dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure P-12) to the effect that he belongs to “Bhat Community” which is recognized as other Backward Class. This certificate was issued by the appropriate authorities after the Deputy Commissioner intervened and issued instructions which are not clarificatory in nature but in the nature of reminder of its earlier communication dated 25.10.1996. 3. Thus, petitioner cannot be found to be faulting in any manner. His status as a Bhat Brahman, member of the other Backward Class, was never in dispute. The error had crept in in the preparation of the revenue record, wherein the word “Bhat Brahman” was changed to the word “Brahman Bhardwaj” which is not a community recognised as other Backward Class in the State of Himachal Pradesh. In normal course, petitioner would have been appointed as a Language Teacher, on batch-wise basis along with other persons in the year 2009 itself. Submission made on behalf of the State that as on the date of interview i.e. 16.12.2008, petitioner was not eligible for consideration, for want of valid certificate, in the instant facts and circumstances cannot be accepted. Certificate was to be issued by the appropriate authorities. The status of the petitioner was never in dispute. Respondents themselves could have taken-up the matter with the appropriate authorities for verification of the same. Petitioner, at all times had taken all appropriate steps within his limitation to obtain the certificate and submit the same to the authorities. Petitioner was otherwise eligible for appointment as a Language Teacher. Such of those persons who were interviewed pursuant to call letter (Annexure P-3) stands appointed some time in the month of August, 2009. 4. Consequently, petitioner’s prayer needs to be allowed. Respondents letter dated 7.4.2010 (Annexure P-14), rejecting the petitioner’s claim for appointment on batch-wise basis is quashed. Respondents action in not considering the petitioner for appointment on batch-wise basis pursuant to Annexure P-3 cannot be said to be tenable in law. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s case for appointment as a Language Teacher from the date when other similarly situated persons stand appointed pursuant to the interview held on 16.12.2008. All consequential benefits shall follow. Needful be positively done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 5. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. March 31, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.