IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.8402/2011-A Reserved on: 1.12.2011 Decided on:14.12.2011 _____________________________________________ Gulab Singh Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner : Mr. B.B. Vaid, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, A.G. with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. A.G. and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. A.G. for respondents No. 1 to 5. Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for respondent No.6. ____________________________________________________ Per Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent No.3 issued an advertisement whereby applications were invited for filling up 41 posts of Medical Officer (Dental). The applications were to be submitted on or before 6.8.2011. Four posts were reserved for O.B.C. category. Petitioner submitted an application for considering his candidature under the general category. However, simultaneously he also made several 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2 representations to the respondents to consider his case under O.B.C. category. Interviews were held on 24.9.2011. The fact of the matter is that petitioner’s case was considered under general category. The Court had passed the following order on 17.11.2011: “The petitioner is aggrieved since despite the resolution by the Gram Panchayat and despite actually belonging to the Bhat Brahmin community, there is no entry in the revenue records to that effect. Apparently, the matter is now pending before the State Commission, as can be seen from Annexure P-14, only in case the Commission issues direction, there could be revenue entry and only in case there is revenue entry, the Tehsildar can issue the certificate. There will be a direction to the 6th respondent to complete the process of inquiry in the case of the petitioner within a week from the date of production of a copy of this order by the petitioner before the 6th respondent and communicate its views to the 4th and 5th respondents. The 4th and 5th respondents shall take the required action in the light of the views expressed by the 6th respondent within another one week.” 2. In sequel to order dated 17.11.2001, respondent No.6 sent a communication to respondents No.4 and 5 to take necessary action for issuance of O.B.C. certificate on the basis of data supplied and the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Baur, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla on 25.11.2011. It is also borne out from the communication received from respondent No.6 that earlier also the Commission had asked the S.D.O. (civil) to look into the matter personally with regard to issuance of O.B.C. certificate to the petitioner at the earliest. It is thus, evident that respondent No.6 has initiated the process for 3 issuance of O.B.C. certificate to the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not in possession of O.B.C. certificate on the cut off date, i.e. 6.11.2011, his case could not be considered against the O.B.C. category. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondents No.4 and 5 to issue O.B.C. certificate to the petitioner. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner against the future vacancies falling in the share of O.B.C. category for the post of Medical Officer (Dental) as and when the same are advertised in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 14.12. 2011 *awasthi*