( 2025:HHC:5884 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 2704/2025 Decided on: 12.03.2025 Surender Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Anr. .…Respondents. ………………………………………………………………………………. Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General. Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J Pursuant to the orders dated 27.02.2025 and 10.03.2025, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record the detailed instructions dated 11.03.2025 from the Additional Director General-cum-Director Fire Services, H.P. In view of detailed instructions supplied by the learned Additional Advocate General clarifying the stand of the respondents, there is no necessity for calling any reply. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard at this stage. 2. Petitioner is presently serving as home-guard in the Home Guard Organization. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 ( 2025:HHC:5884 ) 2(i) Respondent-department issued an advertisement on 27.08.2024 proposing to fill up 102 posts of firemen on the basis of batch-wise selection. 2 posts out of 102 posts were advertised for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Tribes (BPL) category. Advertisement further stipulated submissions of applications by 30.09.2024. Desirous candidates were to appear before the respondents alongwith their credentials/documents/certificates on 30.09.2024. 2(ii) Petitioner belonging to Scheduled Tribes (BPL) category applied for the post meant for this category under the aforesaid advertisement. He was called for the interview/production of documents on 30.09.2024. Petitioner’s grievance is that the respondents have rejected his candidature on the ground that he had produced his Scheduled Tribes (BPL) category certificate on the date, when he was called for the interview i.e. 30.09.2024 but the same was not appended alongwith his application. Aggrieved against rejection of his candidature, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 4. It is seen from the record that in somewhat similar factual situation, the respondents had rejected the candidature of one Sh. Rakesh Kumar, who had also applied for the post of Scheduled 3 ( 2025:HHC:5884 ) Caste (BPL) category advertised by the respondents on 27.08.2024. Rejection of candidature of Sh. Rakesh Kumar was on the ground that he had produced Scheduled Caste (BPL) category certificate only on the date of appearing for the interview/production of documents/certificates etc. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Court repelled the contention of the respondents. The writ petition being Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. & Anr.2 was allowed with following operative directions:- “11. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice, in case, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that let the merit of the candidates, who had applied for appointment under the ST (BPL) category, be assessed afresh, after taking into consideration the BPL Certificates, which were submitted by these candidates, after the last date of submission of application form, but as on the date, when the counselling was done. Ordered accordingly. Needful be done within four weeks from today and appointment be offered to the candidates, strictly as per merit. Record stands returned. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.” In the aforesaid writ petition, respondents were directed to assess the merit afresh of the candidates, who had applied for appointment under ST (BPL) category, after taking into consideration the BPL certificates, which were submitted by them after the last date of submissions of applications form, but on the date when the counselling was done. Instant case is squarely covered by the above 2CWP No. 14817/2024 decided on 09.12.2024 4 ( 2025:HHC:5884 ) directions. The respondents in the instructions have not disputed that the ST (BPL) category certificate was obtained by the petitioner on 20.09.2024 and it was produced by him before the Selection Committee on 30.09.2024 at the time of counselling/interview for production of documents etc. That being the position, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post in question. Rejection of petitioner’s candidature on the ground that he had furnished the certificate in question on the date of counselling i.e. 30.09.2024, is untenable. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of certificate furnished by him on the date of counselling for his belonging to Scheduled Tribe (BPL) category. The same be taken to its logical conclusion. This entire exercise be completed within two weeks. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 12th March, 2025(rohit)