2025:HHC:30592 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWPOA No. 6851 of 2020 Reserved on: 22.08.2025 Decided on: 08.09.2025 __________________________________________________________ Naresh Kumar …Petitioner Versus HPSEBL and another …Respondents __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? No ______________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. S.C.Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Ravi Patial, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Sugandh Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Mehta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Satyen Vaidya, Judge The instant petition has been filed for the following substantive reliefs: “a) Quash the impugned selection list vide Annexure A-4 issued arbitrarily, malafidely and illegally by the respondents. b) Direct the respondent to consider the documents attached by the applicant at the time of submission of application vide Annexure A-2 & A- 3 including “Non-employment Certificate”, “BPL 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:30592 Certificate & “Income Certificate” and select and appoint the applicant for the post of Junior T/Mate in accordance with the provisions of A-1.” 2. Respondent No.1 published advertisement No.1/2018 dated 17.07.2018 whereby applications were invited for filling up 605 posts of Junior T-Mate, 49 posts of Junior Helper (Power House Electrical) and 145 posts of Junior Helper (Sub-Station) on fixed contractual remunerations. 3. The petitioner submitted his applications for the posts of Junior T-Mate/Junior Helper (Power House Electrical)/Junior Helper (Sub-Station) in pursuance to the aforesaid advertisement under SC-UR category. 4. On completion of selection process, the petitioner remained unsuccessful. He was awarded 68.01 marks, whereas the cut off merit list in the category of SC- UR was 68.64%. 5. The grievance as raised by the petitioner is that he was entitled to 2.5 more marks being a member of BPL family having annual income (from all resources) below Rs.40,000/-. 3 2025:HHC:30592 6. The respondents have sought to justify their conduct in not granting 2.5 marks to the petitioner as member of BPL family. Their explanation is that though with one of the applications of the petitioner, the BPL certificate was annexed but it did not reflect the income of the family from all sources to be less than Rs.40,000/- and the petitioner had also not submitted any separate certificate in this behalf. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 8. As noticed above, since the facts are not in dispute. The only question arises whether a separate income certificate showing the income of the family of the petitioner to be less than Rs.40,000/- was required to be submitted? 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar issue had arisen on earlier occasion also in CWPOA No.6529 of 2020 titled Sahil Kumar vs. HPSEBL and others. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 06.06.2025 passed in CWPOA No.6529 of 2020 has negated the requirement to submit an income 4 2025:HHC:30592 certificate separately and it has been held that the production of valid BPL certificate was sufficient to hold a candidate entitled for 2.5 marks under the aforesaid category. 10. In order to test the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, it will be apt to notice the relevant extract of judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court on 06.06.2025 in Sahil Kumar (supra) as under:- “29. As per condition/ instructions No.4(iii)(6) of the Advertisement, 2.5 marks were to be awarded to a candidate belonging to BPL family having annual income, from all sources, below Rs.40,000/- or as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. The certificate in this regard, as per Advertisement, should have been issued by the concerned Block Development Officer (BDO) by taking authenticated entry in the Pariwar Register, or by concerned Panchayat Secretary/Sahayak and countersigned by concerned Gram Panchayat Pradhan. 30. In present case, certificate, duly signed and issued by Panchayat Secretary/Sahayak and countersigned by concerned Gram Panchayat Pradhan, was submitted by the petitioner alongwith application form. The only reason for not awarding 2.5 marks is that neither it was mentioned in the BPL certificate that family annual income was below Rs.40,000/- nor any income certificate was submitted by the petitioner indicating/certifying that annual income of his family was below Rs.40,000/-. 5 2025:HHC:30592 31. No absurd plea more than the plea taken by the respondent-Board can be there with regard to aforesaid condition. Condition categorically provides that candidate must be from BPL family having annual income below Rs.40,000/- or as prescribed by the Government time to time. No doubt, at the relevant point of time, prescribed family income for issuance of BPL certificate was Rs.40,000/-, but it does not mean that to substantiate the income of family, a separate certificate of annual income of family was required to be produced or such family income was to be indicated in the BPL certificate. It is obvious that for the criteria of income, for issuance of BPL certificate at the relevant point of time was that income should be below Rs.40,000/-, and issuance of BPL certificate by the competent Authority and possession thereof with validity during the relevant period, was sufficient to construe that annual family income of the petitioner was less than Rs.40,000/-. It was not the business of anybody except certificate issuing Authority to assess or validate or verify the annual income of the family eligible for issuance of BPL family certificate. 32. The words, in condition “or as prescribed by the Government time to time”, are sufficient to indicate that limitation of annual income of Rs.40,000/- was changeable and the certificate of BPL family can be issued only to such family which fulfills the criteria family income limit prescribed by the Government time to time. Fulfilling the condition of criteria of income limit prescribed for issuance of BPL certificate is inherent in the BPL category issued by competent authority.” 6 2025:HHC:30592 11. In the case at hand, the facts are identical as in Sahil Kumar (supra). Here also the petitioner had submitted the BPL certificate issued and counter signed by the competent authority. The only fact that that the income of family from all sources was less than 40,000/- was missing. 12. Thus, the respondents have not been right in refusing grant of 2.5 marks to the petitioner being member of a BPL family. By addition of 2.5 marks to his total score, the total marks will be 70.51 and above the cut off merit in the category of SC-UR. In such circumstances the petitioner has wrongly been denied the offer of appointment, whereas he had achieved the requisite merit. 13. The petitioner has impleaded respondent No.2, who is the last selected candidate in the category of SC- UR. In normal circumstances, the inclusion of petitioner in the merit list would entail the ouster of private respondent No.2, however, it has to be kept in view that the selection process was completed in the year 2019 and more than six years have elapsed since the private respondent No.2 was appointed. Moreover, it is not the case that respondent 7 2025:HHC:30592 No.2 had obtained employment by any misrepresentation or fraud etc. The situation has arisen only on account of wrong interpretation by the respondent-HPSEBL. That being so, no adverse order can be passed against the interest of private respondent No.2. Nonetheless, since the petitioner has made out a case for himself, respondent No.1 is required to offer appointment to the petitioner against a vacant post, if any, and in absence thereof by creation of a supernumerary post. 14. The petition is accordingly allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post in reference within a period of four weeks from this order either against a vacant post or in absence, by creation of a supernumerary post from the date when respondent No.2 was appointed alongwith all consequential benefits. 15. The petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s) if any. 8th September, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge