Valid BPL Certificate Alone Sufficient For Award Of BPL Marks; Separate Income Certificate Not Mandatory : Himachal Pradesh HC

Background Facts

The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL) issued an Advertisement No.1/2018 for the post of Junior T-Mate/Junior Helper (Sub-Station/Power House). The petitioner had applied under the General (BPL) category. He submitted his application on 03.08.2018, enclosing all required documents including a valid BPL certificate. It was issued by the Panchayat Secretary and countersigned by the Gram Panchayat Pradhan. It had validity up to 24.01.2019. As per the recruitment process, 2.5 marks were to be awarded to BPL category candidates. The result was declared on 10.01.2019 where the petitioner secured 70.73 marks. The 2.5 BPL marks were not added. Whereas other similarly placed candidates were awarded the BPL marks and selected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner submitted a representation. It was rejected on the ground that no separate income certificate was submitted which showed family income below ₹40,000.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an Application before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal on 25.03.2019. But due to abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

It was contended by the petitioner that he had applied under the General (BPL) category and had submitted a valid BPL certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary and countersigned by the Gram Panchayat Pradhan, as required under the recruitment advertisement. It was further contended that other similarly situated candidates were granted the benefit of BPL marks, who had submitted BPL certificates in the same format. Hence, the denial of the BPL marks to him was arbitrary and discriminatory.

It was also submitted by the petitioner that the advertisement did not require submission of a separate income certificate when a valid BPL certificate was already submitted. It was further submitted that due to the wrongful denial of 2.5 marks, his merit was adversely affected and he was deprived of appointment despite being eligible than the last selected candidate in the General (BPL) category.

On the other hand, it was contended by the respondents that BPL certificate submitted by petitioner did not mention the annual income of his family. Further no separate income certificate was submitted to show that the family income was below ₹40,000, as required under the recruitment instructions. It was further contended by the respondents that the petitioner failed to implead all selected candidates who may be affected. Therefore, such non-joinder of necessary parties rendered the petition defective. It was also stated that another selected candidate was appointed through a proper process and he was serving since 2019 without any fault. Therefore, it would cause serious prejudice and hardship to him and his family if he is displaced at this stage.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the Court that the petitioner had submitted a valid BPL certificate issued by the competent authority. Further that the certificate was in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. It was observed that the requirement of family income must be below ₹40,000 was inherent in the issuance of the BPL certificate itself. There is no separate condition requiring an additional income certificate to be submitted. It was further observed by the Court that the respondent Board acted arbitrarily in denying the 2.5 marks to the petitioner solely on the ground that the certificate did not specifically mention the income figure. It was held by the court that such an interpretation was contrary to the clear language of the advertisement. It amounted to an unjust denial of the petitioner's rightful claim.

It was held by the court that the petitioner was entitled to be awarded 2.5 additional marks, which would increase his score to 73.23, higher than the last selected candidate in the General (BPL) category who had secured 72.63. Therefore, the petitioner should have been selected and offered appointment. The case of Union of India and others vs. Parul Debnath and others, was relied upon by the court wherein Supreme Court held that usually it is responsibility of the Executive to create posts but in special situations, the direction by the court to create posts is sometimes appropriate and does not require interference.

It was held by the court that another selected candidate could not be blamed because he had been working since 2019. Therefore, it was directed by the Court to the respondent Board to create a supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner without disturbing the service of other selected candidate. It was further held by the court that the petitioner was entitled to all service benefits, including seniority and monetary arrears from the date on which similarly placed candidates were appointed.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was allowed.

Case Name: Sahil Kumar v. HPSEBL and Others

Case No.: CWPOA No. 6529 of 2020

Counsel for the Petitioner: Arun Kaushal, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate with Dhananjay Sharma and Surender Kumar, Advocates, Rohit Chauhan, Advocate vice Arun Sehgal, Advocate, Narender Kumar, Advocate