Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua held that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Laboratory Technician on the ground of OBC certificate validity was erroneous. The Court quashed the rejection communication dated 21.12.2024 and directed the respondents to consider the OBC certificate issued to the petitioner on 29.03.2023 as valid for the relevant period. The Court further directed that necessary action based on the petitioner’s result be concluded within four weeks. The State was also directed to ensure clarity in the issuance of such certificates as per the Gazette notification dated 09.01.2012.

Respondent No.3 issued an advertisement on 19.09.2022 inviting online recruitment applications for various posts, including 36 positions of Laboratory Technician under the National Health Mission, to be filled on a contract basis. Of these, five posts were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates of Himachal Pradesh. The deadline for application submission was 02.10.2022.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in POCSO Case but Modifies Life Sentence | Says Retrospective Application of Harsher 2019 Amendment Violates Article 20(1)

As per the advertisement, candidates claiming OBC reservation were required to furnish an OBC certificate in the prescribed format, valid till the relevant term of the Financial Year (1st April to 31st March), as notified by the State Government through its Rajpatra notification dated 09.01.2012. It was explicitly stated that candidates must hold a valid OBC certificate for the entire duration from the last date of application submission till the date of document verification/selection. Further, the certificate should be accompanied by an undertaking affirming that the OBC status had not changed and the candidate had not been excluded from the OBC category on account of falling under the creamy layer.

The petitioner submitted an OBC certificate dated 22.07.2021 along with the application, which certified non-inclusion in the creamy layer based on the income certificate for the financial year 2021-2022. The results were declared, and the petitioner secured a position at Sr. No. 102 in the merit list with 5 marks. Consequently, the petitioner was called for document verification scheduled on 31.03.2023 through an order dated 25.03.2023. During this verification, the petitioner submitted a fresh OBC certificate dated 29.03.2023, certifying non-inclusion in the creamy layer for the financial year 2022-2023.

Despite these submissions, appointment letters issued on 30.10.2024 did not include the petitioner. Respondent No.4, who had secured 3.75 marks and was lower in merit, was included in the final appointment list. Respondent No.4 had also applied under the OBC category.

The petitioner submitted a representation against the non-inclusion, but the respondents rejected it via communication dated 21.12.2024. The stated reason was that neither of the OBC certificates produced by the petitioner covered the crucial date of 02.10.2022. Specifically, the certificate dated 22.07.2021 was valid only until 21.07.2022, and the certificate dated 29.03.2023, although produced during document verification, became valid from that date onwards. The respondents relied on the Department of Revenue notification dated 09.01.2012, which amended the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, 1992, and specified that OBC and similar certificates remain valid only till the relevant term of the financial year.

In response, the petitioner argued that both certificates, particularly the one dated 29.03.2023, substantively certified his OBC status for the financial year 2022-2023, which includes the period from 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023. The petitioner maintained that he remained within the OBC category and outside the creamy layer for the required duration and that the certificate met the criteria specified in the advertisement and the notification.

The respondents contended that the petitioner lacked a valid OBC certificate from 22.07.2022 to 28.03.2023. According to them, the requirement of continuous certificate validity from 02.10.2022 (last date of application) to 31.03.2023 (date of verification) was not met.

Respondent No.3 adopted the stand of Respondents No.1 and 2. Respondent No.4, despite being served, remained ex parte.

Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua recorded that "the respondents have misconstrued the stipulation in the advertisement and the notification dated 09.01.2012 vis-à-vis validity of the OBC certificates produced by the petitioner."

The Court referred to the language of the advertisement, which stated: "The candidates belonging to OBC of H.P. category must produce OBC certificate(s) on the prescribed format valid till the relevant term of the Financial Year (i.e. 1st April to 31st March)... Candidates must have a valid OBC Certificate covering the entire period from last date of submission of online applications till date of document verification/selection."

The judgment further examined the Gazette notification dated 09.01.2012, which substituted Chapter 28 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, 1992. Quoting Clause 28.7, the Court noted: "The Bonafide Himachali, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Ward of freedom fighters, Dogra class, community and legal heir certificates shall be permanent certificates. The other certificates shall remain valid till the relevant term of the financial year."

Interpreting this, the Court held that the OBC certificate, not being one of the permanent certificates, must align with the financial year. The certificate dated 29.03.2023 certified the petitioner's OBC status for 2022-2023 (01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023), which "covers the period for which the petitioner was required to be in possession of OBC certificate in terms of the advertisement."

The Court observed: "Respondents appear to have been swayed away by the validity of the OBC certificates mentioned at the top of the said certificates." It held that "the validity mentioned at the top of the certificates becomes insignificant in view of what has been certified in the said certificates, which is otherwise in sync with the notification dated 09.01.2012."

Stating substance over form, the Court stated: "It is the fact certified in the certificate that is material." Referring to Shri Nashik Panchavati Panjarpol Trust & Ors. Versus The Chairman & Anr., the Court reiterated that documents must be read harmoniously and in totality.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s status as OBC did not change from 22.07.2021 till 31.03.2023 and was certified by Annexure P-8.

Also Read: AP High Court Sets Aside Charges Framed Under UAPA | Non-Supply of Protected Witness Statements Vitiates Proceedings | Orders Fresh Start Under BNS Section 230

The Court directed: "This writ petition is allowed. Impugned communication dated 21.12.2024 (Annexure P-11), rejecting the candidature of the petitioner as an OBC candidate for appointment as Laboratory Technician, is quashed and set aside."

Further, it held: "The respondents are directed to consider the OBC certificate of the petitioner dated 29.03.2023 as valid & covering the period w.e.f. 01.04.2022 to 31.03.2023 and take further action in the matter based upon his result by taking it to the logical conclusion within a period of four weeks from today."

Additionally, the Court instructed: "The State Revenue Department, through the office of learned Advocate General, is directed to issue suitable directions to all concerned offices to issue certificates as per Gazette notification dated 09.01.2012 and not to issue certificates with ambiguous validity periods."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Chandel, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Choudhry, Assistant Advocate General; Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate

Case Title: Rasham v. State of H.P. and others

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:23044

Case Number: CWP No.4840 of 2025

Bench: Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua