IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.4969 of 2022 Decided on 25th May, 2026 Nirmla …Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge 1Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the petitioner: Mr. Hirdaya Ram, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent department to consider the case of the petitioner against the OBC category and select the candidate against OBC category in view merit of the petitioner by placing the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-1).” 2 2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 vide letter dated 27.05.2022 invited Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants for appointment against the post of Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis. Out of the posts advertised, 34 posts were to be filled up from the OBC category, including 27 from OBC Open. The petitioner being eligible was also invited for counseling and she did participate in the said process. The petitioner belongs to the OBC open category and at the time of counseling, she had furnished two certificates of her belonging to the OBC category, one from her parental side and the other from her marital side. The grievance of the petitioner is that her name is not there in the list of selected candidates, Annexure P-1, dated 19.07.2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to Annexure P-2, communication dated 27.05.2022, in terms whereof, Director, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh had called upon all the Head of Offices, Animal Husbandry Department, on the subject “counseling schedule for batch wise counseling of GPVAs on 03rd, 04th, 06th 3 and 09th June, 2022 for filling up posts of Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis. He submitted that in terms of these instructions, 34 posts were reserved for the OBC category, including 27 for OBC General. Learned counsel also drew the attention to the final merit list of Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants, Annexure P-3 and has submitted that the petitioner belongs to the 2010-12 batch of Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants. In terms of Annexure P-3, her name is mentioned at serial No.186 and total marks awarded to her are 64 against the category of OBC. Yet, as per the learned counsel, in terms of the final selection list (Annexure P-1), candidates less meritorious than the petitioner stand selected. 4. Learned counsel referred to one Smt. Babita Devi, whose name is reflected at serial No.109 at Annexure P-1, and who had been selected under the OBC category. He submitted that in terms of Annexure P-3, the name of Smt. Babita Devi is reflected at serial No.189 and marks awarded to her are 63.75, which demonstrates that despite being less meritorious than the petitioner, she was offered appointment under the OBC category, whereas, the petitioner was ignored. 4 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the respondents submitted that the merit of the petitioner is not in dispute, but fact of the matter is that when she participated in the counseling process, she submitted two certificates belonging to OBC category. By referring to Para-3 of the preliminary submissions, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner appeared for the counseling on 06.06.2022 and produced one copy of OBC certificate dated 06.07.2017, where, she was shown as Kumari Nirmala, D/o Sh. Daulat Ram and W/o Sh. Madan Lal and in the second OBC certificate dated 24.07.2021 she was shown as Smt. Nirmala, D/o Chandan Singh and W/o Sh. Madan Lal. Both these certificates are invalid. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in terms of letter dated 14.09.2016 issued by Secretary (SJ&E) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the validity of the OBC certificate was one year and as the petitioner submitted invalid OBC certificates, therefore, she was not considered for the post in issue. 5 6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factum of the petitioner belonging to OBC category could have been easily ascertained by the authorities had they given some reasonable time to the petitioner to produce a fresh certificate. He submitted that the petitioner belongs to OBC category from her parental side and that is why she furnished the certificate dated 06.07.2017, wherein, the name of her father Sh. Daulat Ram was reflected. Other certificate submitted from husband’s side was dated 24.07.2021 and the same was not one year old as on the day when the counseling took place. Accordingly, he submitted that the non-selection of the petitioner in the present case is highly arbitrary. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 8. On 05.05.2026, learned Additional Advocate General was directed to produce the record of the case, which stands produced. The same has also been perused by the Court. 6 9. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the petitioner had applied under the OBC category and in the application filed by her, she had mentioned against column No.8 that she belongs to the OBC category. Documents furnished by her alongwith the application form include two certificates to the effect that she belongs to the OBC category. The first certificate dated 24.07.2021 has been issued in favour of petitioner Nirmala Devi reflecting her to be D/o Chandan Singh, R/o Village Barol, District Sirmour, in which, it was mentioned that presently, she was the wife of Sh. Madan Lal, R/o Village Barol, District Sirmour. The other certificate dated 06.10.2017 to the effect that Kumari Nirmal was D/o Daulat Ram, W/o Madan Lal and R/o Barol, Village Barol, District Sirmour. In the certificate dated 06.10.2017, it stands mentioned that the petitioner is a Bhat Brahman which is recognized as Other Backward Class. In the certificate dated 24.07.2021, it stands mentioned that the petitioner belongs to Bhat or Bhatta Class, which was again an OBC. Alongwith the petition, at P-63 thereof, another OBC certificate has been appended by the petitioner, in which, the following is mentioned:- 7 “It is certified that Mrs. Nirmla, Daughter of Mr. Daulat Ram and her paternal address is village/Muhal Baraul, Tehsil Hariprdhar (ST), District Sirmaur belongs to Brahman Acharya. At present wife of Madan Lal Resident of 162 village/Muhal Baraul Tehsil Haripurdhar (ST) District Sirmaur H.P. which is recognized as Other Backward Class in Himachal Pradesh by Government.” 10. Besides this, in Para-8 of the writ petition, it is categorically mentioned by the petitioner that she belongs to OBC category both from her parental side as well as marital side. 11. A perusal of the reply filed by the Department to the petition demonstrates that this averment made in the writ petition has not been rebutted. Thus, it is not in dispute that from the parental side indeed the petitioner belongs to OBC category. Because, this Court is of the considered view that the status of the petitioner as to whether or not she belongs to OBC category has to be considered from her parental side only, marriage, obviously, cannot change her status. 12. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that on the date of counseling, the two certificates produced by her were not valid. The certificates which were produced by her were to the effect that she belongs 8 to OBC category. In the application form also, the petitioner had mentioned her category to be OBC. 13. This Court is of the considered view that Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or OBC, which status a person acquires by virtue of birth are not such which keep on changing or fluctuating with the passage of time. Therefore, if a person contends for the purpose of appointment that he or she belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or OBC category and at the time of counseling, there is some doubt with regard to the veracity of the certificate, as there was in the present case, prudence demanded that the Counseling Committee should have given some reasonable time to the petitioner to produce a fresh certificate to the effect that she belonged to OBC category. Had this opportunity being granted to the petitioner, it would not have prejudiced any one, because, fact of the matter is that the appointment was to be offered on merit alone. Herein, despite the fact that the petitioner belongs to OBC category, she has been denied appointment, because, the Selection Committee did not grant some reasonable time to the petitioner to furnish a fresh certificate demonstrating that she belonged to OBC category. 9 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Dolly Chhanda versus Chairman, Jee and others (2005) 9 Supreme Court Cases 779, has held that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that there can’t be relaxation in the matter of holding requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed and this has to be established by producing necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly, in order to avail the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of the case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not 10 necessarily result in rejection of candidature. By referring to its earlier judgment in Charles K. Skaria and others versus Dr. C. Mathew and others, (1980) 2 Supreme Court Cass 752, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “It is fair to state now that we have sketched the backdrop, what the further facts are and what the High Court's verdict is. We may abbreviate the narration because we substantially agree with the main legal point decided by the High Court. Regrettably, its ultimate direction has thrown the academic year in post-graduate Ophthalmology into disarray and even wastage. Welfare-oriented judicial process must be constructive in its objective, must be geared to order as its goal and must pave the way for resultant contentment, avoiding negative writs which, in practice, prove to be congealing commands. Indeed, the High Court, on the crucial question, has more or less correctly stated the law regarding denial of opportunity for 'outsiders' and consequently found the admission to the courses all wrong, but through its judgment, has jettisoned students who are half-way through their courses and directed fresh admissions on new policies yet to be evolved, with little chance of any one getting through the examinations or even admissions during this academic year consistently with the university regulations and governmental tardiness. We cannot countenance such negativity without some effort at rescue through the court writ since a whole year of Ophthalmology study at the post-graduate level may well be lost to the State, what with the enormous investment in running such courses that the universities have laid out and the people's need for such specialists. The Full Bench decision of the High Court, in its ultimate effect, has left behind it a fallout of demolition. As a result of our above discussion and conclusion we allow N.A. No. 222 of 1979 and set 11 aside the judgment of the learned Judge and the rank list for admission to the post-graduate courses in Ophthalmology, and quash the selections made on the basis of the said list. We were rather distressed at having to quash the selections of budding youngsters to the specialised courses. Such thoughts prevailed with us in the Full Bench decision in State of Kerala and Anr. v. Rafia Rahim (1978 KLT 369). While the petitioners in those cases won the battle, they were denied the fruits of victory. We see no ground for a repetition of the same treatment to the petitioners before us. Particularly it is so, because some of them had filed the writ petitions before the selections, and some had obtained interim orders that the selections shall be finalised only subject to the result of the writ petitions in this court. We cannot lightly pass over these aspects. We would accordingly quash the selections made and directly a fresh selection to the courses, in accordance with law and in the light of the observation contained in this judgment. Whatever might be the passion for correct law and provocation on account of governmental indifference, the court, in our view, must use its power to correct error and promote order and not strike down an illegal error without going forward to affirmative action which may minimise injury generally. Indeed, the judicial process, in its creative impulse, must hesitate to scuttle, salvage wherever possible and destroy only when the situation is beyond retrieval-life-giving facts forgotten by the High Court when quashing the admissions for the year. This positive perspective justifies the final direction that we issue in the concluding para of this judgment, if we may anticipate the nature of the relief we have moulded.” 12 15. In light of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment as also in the judgment of Charles K. Skaria and others versus Dr. C. Mathew and others (supra), the act of the respondents of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that she did not furnish a valid OBC certificate at the time of counseling is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. The petitioner was claiming the benefit of reservation under the OBC category. Her belonging to OBC category as on the date when she applied for the post of course was a condition precedent. However, in case, the authorities were not satisfied with the certificates which were produced by the petitioner to demonstrate that she belongs to OBC category or if they were invalid as on the said date, they should have given some reasonable time to the petitioner to submit proof of her belonging to OBC category. This infraction on the part of the petitioner of not producing a valid certificate at the time of counseling could not have resulted in the rejection of her candidature. 13 17. This Court is again repeating that submission of an OBC certificate is not something akin to a candidate fulfilling some other eligibility criteria like acquiring minimum qualification on the last date of submission of application etc. For example, if there is a post for which the minimum qualification is graduation and a candidate might have appeared in the examination, but the result was not out as on the last date of testing the eligibility, then, subsequent declaration of the result cannot make that candidate eligible. However, herein because, the petitioner even as on the date, when she applied for the post in issue or when she appeared in the counseling belonged to OBC category, simply because, she was not able to produce a valid certificate on the said date, the same could not have resulted in outright rejection of her candidature. Reasonable time should have been granted to the petitioner to produce the fresh certificate and had the petitioner failed to do the needful within said time, then, of course consequences would have ensued. 14 18. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this writ petition is allowed. The act of the respondents rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that stands enumerated in the reply is held to be bad in law. 19. In light of the fact that appointment has been offered to a candidate lower in rank in merit than the petitioner under the OBC category, respondents-Department is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Veterinary Pharmacist as from the date when the candidate less meritorious than her was offered appointment against the post reserved for OBC. However, this will be done without disturbing the appointed candidate. Seniority shall be conferred upon the petitioner strictly as per merit. The appointment of the petitioner shall be from the date when others were appointed but the same shall be notional as upto the date of passing of the judgment and thereafter consequential benefits shall accrue. Original record stands returned back. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 25, 2026 (Vinod)