Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma allowed a petition challenging the denial of BPL category marks to a candidate, holding that the recruitment board erred in rejecting a valid BPL certificate for want of a separate income certificate. The Court directed the respondent-board to offer appointment to the petitioner with full monetary and seniority benefits from the original date of appointment applicable to similarly placed candidates. The bench, while choosing not to oust the already appointed candidate, instructed the creation of a supernumerary post for accommodating both the petitioner and the incumbent.

The petitioner approached the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal on March 25, 2019, alleging wrongful denial of 2.5 marks earmarked for Below Poverty Line (BPL) candidates in the recruitment process for the posts of Junior T-Mate, Junior Helper (Sub-Station), and Junior Helper (Power House) (Electrical), advertised by the respondent-board via Advertisement No. 1 of 2018 dated July 17, 2018.

Also Read: Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof In Criminal Trial | Supreme Court Acquits Man Of Murder As Prosecution Fails To Prove Who Pulled The Trigger

The recruitment was based on a 100-mark selection process: 60 marks for matriculation scores, 25 marks for technical qualifications, and 15 marks under evaluation criteria outlined in the advertisement. Clause 4(iii)(6) of the advertisement stated that candidates from BPL families with annual income below Rs. 40,000 or as prescribed by the government would receive 2.5 marks, provided they submitted a certificate from the concerned Panchayat authorities.

The petitioner applied under the General (BPL) category and submitted a BPL certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Jandaur, duly countersigned by the Gram Panchayat Pradhan. The certificate, issued on July 24, 2018, was valid up to January 24, 2019. However, the board awarded the petitioner only 70.73 marks, excluding the 2.5 BPL marks. Consequently, candidates with slightly higher or lower total marks, including BPL marks, were selected instead.

The board defended the decision by claiming that the petitioner had not attached a separate income certificate proving his family's annual income was below Rs. 40,000. The scrutiny committee, in its minutes dated March 19, 2019, stated that the petitioner submitted only a BPL certificate, which lacked income details, thereby rendering him ineligible for the additional marks.

The petitioner contested that the BPL certificate itself was sufficient proof, as its issuance was subject to the government-prescribed income ceiling. He argued that it was the responsibility of the certificate-issuing authority to ensure income eligibility, not the candidate.

The respondents also raised preliminary objections regarding necessary party impleadment. However, the Court noted that the last selected candidate in the General (BPL) category had been properly arrayed as Respondent No. 2, and others were joined either as affected or representative parties. Thus, the non-joinder of other candidates was not found fatal.

The Court further acknowledged the board's argument that Respondent No. 2 was appointed through due process in 2019 and continued to serve, and that ousting him now would lead to undue hardship. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 requested that the petitioner be accommodated through creation of a new or supernumerary post.

The Court recorded: "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/-."

The bench noted: "No absurd plea more than the plea taken by the respondent-Board can be there with regard to aforesaid condition."

Further, the Court reasoned: "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."

"Therefore, despite having valid certificate of BPL family, petitioner has been wrongly denied award of 2.5 marks to him." The Court held that the petitioner was thus entitled to the marks, which would raise his total to 73.23, higher than the last selected candidate in the General (BPL) category.

Regarding service benefits, the Court stated: "Petitioner is definitely entitled for appointment from the date from which other selected candidates, in pursuance to the same selection process, were appointed along with all benefits, including monetary and seniority."

On equity, the Court remarked: "It shall not be appropriate to oust the last selected candidate after more than six years of his selection especially when the said candidate has no role in the mistake committed by the respondent-Board."

Referring to Chandan Banerjee v. Krishna Prosad Ghosh and Union of India v. Parul Debnath, the Court recorded: "In situation like present case, it shall be appropriate to direct the respondent-Board to create supernumerary post for last selected candidate in the General (BPL) category."

Regarding back wages, the bench held: "No work no pay principle is not applicable in present case" and stated that "petitioner shall be entitled for monetary benefits on actual basis from the due date."

The Court directed: "Respondent-Board is directed to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post in reference on or before 15.07.2025 and in case petitioner joins after completing all codal formalities, then, he shall also be entitled for all service benefits, including monetary and seniority benefits from the due date from which other selected candidates from the same process were appointed."

Also Read: Application of Rule 3 of the Electricity Rules, 2005 for Electricity Tax Held Illegal | Madras High Court Quashes Demand Notice on Captive Power Plant

"Arrears to the petitioner shall be paid by the respondent-Board without interest either in installments or in one go on or before 31.03.2026 failing which petitioner shall be entitled to 6% interest per month from due date till realization."

"Other consequential benefits, if any, shall also be extended to the petitioner within three months of his joining."

"In case petitioner does not join or declines to accept offer of appointment then, he would not be entitled for any other service benefits including arrears of monetary benefits since 2019 onwards."

"Petition is allowed and disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any, in aforesaid terms."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate

For the Respondents: Ms. Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhananjay Sharma and Mr. Surender Kumar, Advocates; Mr. Rohit Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr. Arun Sehgal, Advocate; Mr. Narender Kumar, Advocate

Case Title: Sahil Kumar v. HPSEBL and Others

Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:18125

Case Number: CWPOA No. 6529 of 2020

Bench: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma

[Read/Download order]