2025:HHC:17900 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13142 of 2024 Decided on: 24.04.2025 Rakesh Kumar … Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : M/s Hirdaya Ram and Suresh Singh Saini, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Thakur CGC for respondent-UOI. : Mr. Sumit Sharma, Dy. AG for respondent-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “That the writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to issue the scheduled caste certificates to the caste fellows of the petitioner in view of the admitted fact that there are different spellings of the caste of the caste fellows of the petitioner in the revenue record for which the handmade scheduled caste certificates have been issued to the caste fellows of the petitioner in the past but after introduction of e- District website to generate caste certificates, the benefit of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:17900 issuing of schedules caste certificates have been denied to a large number of population belonging to the caste of the petitioner in violation of the Fundamental Rights of the caste fellows of the petitioner consequences of which are that the caste fellows of the petitioner are neither getting the benefit of reservation in the admissions as per Article 15 of the Constitution of India nor in the recruitment and promotion as per Article 16 of the Constitution of India whereas the caste fellows of the petitioner having spelling matching with the Annexure P-2 have been getting all the benefits resulting into differential treatment to the similar situated persons against the settled law.” 2. The petitioner, in terms of para-1 of this writ petition, has claimed that he has filed this petition as a pro bono publico. This Court is of the considered view that a pro bono publico petition has to be filed on the format of Public Interest Litigation and therefore, as prayed for, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioner that, in case, he may so desire, he may approach the Court, by way of a Public Interest Litigation. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge April 24, 2025 (narender)