2026:HHC:1104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.8557 of 2022 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 ____________________________________________________________ Amit Kumar …….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and Others ….Respondents ____________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol, Additional Advocate General, for State. Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ____________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs: “i) That in view of the submissions made in the writ petition, the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the selection process undertaken by the respondent No.3 for Panchayat Secretary under the category of OBC (BPL) may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) That the respondent No. 3 may kindly be directed to re-draw the merit under the category of OBC (BPL) and offer the appointment to the petitioner being OBC (BPL) candidate.” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that vide advertisement dated 16.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), respondent-Panchayati Raj Department advertised 239 posts of Panchayat Secretary in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Out of afore 239 posts, 50 posts were allocated to District Shimla. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2026:HHC:1104 -2- Out of 50 posts, two posts were reserved for OBC (BPL). Petitioner herein applied for one of the posts reserved for OBC (BPL). Petitioner qualified the written examination as well as skill test i.e. typing test, under Roll No.33414, as a result thereof, vide communication dated 21.09.2022 (Annexure P-3), he was called for verification of documents on 29.09.2022. Petitioner allegedly submitted all his documents, including BPL Certificate, but yet despite his being higher in merit, he was not selected against one of the post reserved for the category of OBC (BPL). In the afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings praying therein for reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. P.K. Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that on the date of verification of documents i.e. 29.09.2022, petitioner had submitted BPL Certificate dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), but the same was not taken into consideration by the Selection Committee on the ground that same is not countersigned by Block Development Officer. Mr. Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that petitioner after getting the BPL Certificate countersigned by Block Development Officer, submitted the same to the Selection Committee on 30.09.2022, but yet his candidature was not considered under the category of OBC (BPL). While referring to the merit- list (available at page No.28 of the paper-book) (Annexure P-6), Mr. Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submitted that even if petitioner is not granted ten marks for his having possessed BPL Certificate, he could 2026:HHC:1104 -3- not have been ignored for appointment against the post in question because of his being higher in merit. 4. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General representing the respondent-State and Mr. Mukul Sood, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, submitted that at no point of time, petitioner ever produced BPL Certificate and as such, there was no occasion, if any, for respondents to consider his candidature under the OBC (BPL) category. Above named counsel further argued that though petitioner herein has obtained higher marks than other candidates, who have been selected against the post of OBC (BPL), but once he was unable to produce documents, suggestive of the fact that he belongs to the category of OBC (BPL), no illegality can be said to have been committed by the respondents while not considering the case of the petitioner under the category of OBC (BPL). 5. I have heard learned counsel representing the parties and gone through the record of the case. 6. Admittedly, petitioner herein belongs to the category of OBC (BPL). Careful perusal of Certificate dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-4) adduced on record suggests that petitioner belongs to the category of OBC (BPL), but question which needs determination in the case at hand is “whether petitioner had produced afore Certificate at the time of verification of documents held on 29.09.2022 & 30.09.2022 or not?” 7. As per case of the petitioner, he had submitted OBC (BPL) Certificate on the given date, but since same was not countersigned by the 2026:HHC:1104 -4- Block Development Officer, he was granted time to produce the BPL Certificate duly countersigned by the Block Development Officer. This Court, with a view to ascertain the correctness of aforesaid claim put forth at the behest of petitioner, vide order dated 02.12.2025 called upon respondents to produce the record. 8. Pursuant to afore order, record of selection has been made available to this Court, perusal whereof nowhere reveals that petitioner had submitted Certificate of OBC (BPL) at the time of verification of documents. It emerges from the record that at the time of verification of documents, selected candidates are required to fill up a list, thereby giving the details of documents, furnished by him or her. If the list of documents produced by the petitioner at the time of verification of documents is perused in its entirety, it clearly reveals that he had not submitted OBC (BPL) Certificate. It is not in dispute that aforesaid list of Certificates was produced by the petitioner on 29.09.2022, meaning thereby that at that time, he was not in possession of OBC (BPL) Certificate. Though careful perusal of OBC (BPL) Certificate adduced on record by the petitioner (Annexure P-4) suggests that same was issued on 27.09.2022, but once petitioner failed to produce the same at the time of verification of documents, there was no occasion, if any, for Selection Committee to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the category of OBC (BPL). Otherwise also, there appears to be merit in the contention of learned counsel representing respondents that once OBC (BPL) Certificate is issued by the competent authority, there is no occasion, if any, for Member of the Selection Committee to call upon the 2026:HHC:1104 -5- petitioner to produce the OBC (BPL) Certificate duly countersigned by the Block Development Officer. 9. Though by way of supplementary affidavit, petitioner had asserted that on 29.09.2022, he had produced the OBC (BPL) Certificate, but the same was not accepted by the Selection Committee on the pretext that same is not countersigned by the Block Development Officer, but such claim of the petitioner has been seriously refuted by the respondents, who otherwise by way of producing the record had succeeded in substantiating the fact that at the time of verification of documents, petitioner was not in possession of OBC (BPL) Certificate. 10. 10. Though at this stage, learned counsel representing the petitioner attempted to argue that list of certificate allegedly produced by the petitioner at the time of verification of documents was filled up by an official, but this Court is not persuaded to agree with afore submission of learned counsel representing the petitioner for the reason that signatures upon the aforesaid list, alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner, has not been refuted by the petitioner. In afore list, petitioner has categorically submitted that Certificates as mentioned in Sr. No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 have been annexed, whereas Certificate of BPL, detailed in Sr. No.11 of the list, has not been specifically mentioned. 11. Since claim of the petitioner with regard to his having produced OBC (BPL) Certificate at the time of verification of documents on 29.09.2022 and thereafter on 30.09.2022 is highly disputed, coupled with the fact that record produced by the respondents clearly suggests that at 2026:HHC:1104 -6- the time of production of documents, petitioner herein was not in possession of OBC (BPL) Certificate, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the version put forth by the respondents. Though final merit-list prepared for the category of OBC (BPL) suggests that petitioner has secured more marks than the other two selected candidates, but such fact may not be of much relevance for the reason that since the petitioner failed to produce valid OBC (BPL) Certificate, there was no question, if any, for respondents to consider his candidature under the category OBC (BPL). Once petitioner is not an OBC (BPL) candidate, selected candidate belonging to OBC (BPL) category, may be having less marks, has been rightly given appointment to the post in question reserved for OBC (BPL) category. 12. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge January 05, 2026 (Rajeev Raturi)