Income Certificate Not Required When BPL Certificate Is Submitted: Himachal Pradesh High Court

Himachal Pradesh High Court held that a valid Below Poverty Line certificate is sufficient to claim marks reserved for candidates from economically weaker backgrounds, and income certificate is not required. The Court stated that a BPL certificate is issued only to families who meet the prescribed income eligibility criteria.

Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma: “The words, in condition “or as prescribed by the Government time to time”, are sufficient to indicate that limitation of annual income of `40,000/- was changeable and the certificate of BPL family can be issued only to such family which fulfills the criteria family income limit prescribed by the Government time to time. Fulfiling the condition of criteria of income limit prescribed for issuance of BPL certificate is inherent in the BPL category issued by competent authority”.

Background Facts:

In 2018, the respondent board advertised several posts for helpers in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board. The selection process was based on a total of 100 marks, out of which 60 marks were awarded based on the candidate's matriculation marks, 25 marks were allocated for the technical qualifications specified in the advertisement, and the remaining 15 marks were awarded based on various evaluation criteria, including the candidate's BPL certificate.

The petitioner, Sahil Kumar, submitted his application under the BPL category and provided a valid BPL certificate. However, during the evaluation, he was awarded only 70.73 marks, without the 2.5 marks that candidates with valid BPL certificate were entitled to receive.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal in 2019. However, after the Tribunal was abolished, the case was transferred to the High Court in 2020.

Contentions:

The petitioner contended that other candidates who were selected from the BPL category were awarded the additional 2.5 marks based on their BPL certificate, while he was denied the same benefit.

In response, the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board submitted that although the petitioner had submitted a BPL certificate, he had not provided a separate income certificate, and the BPL certificate did not mention the exact income of the family. So, he was ineligible for the 2.5 marks meant for BPL candidates.

Findings:

The Court observed that the eligibility criteria in the advertisement only allowed the candidate belonging to a BPL family, with an annual income below ₹40,000. The Court emphasized that this did not mean a separate income certificate was required, nor did the BPL certificate needed to specify the exact income figure.

It noted that a BPL certificate could only be issued if the family's income was below the threshold at the time of issuance. Therefore, possession of a valid BPL certificate was sufficient proof.

The Court held that the board had wrongly denied 2.5 marks to the petitioner, despite him having a valid BPL certificate. It stated that the petitioner was entitled to the marks which would raise his total marks from 70.73 to 73.23 marks, a score higher than that of the last selected candidate in BPL category. This would make the petitioner eligible for appointment for the post.

It noted that the selection process concluded in 2019, and soon after that the petitioner filed writ petition before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. Hence, there was no delay on part of the petitioner. The matter remained pending for several years initially before the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal and later before the High Court.

The Court remarked that the petitioner was clearly entitled to be appointed from the same date as other candidates selected through the same recruitment process, along with all consequential benefits, including monetary compensation and seniority. However, it held that it would not be fair to remove another candidate from the post, who had been serving for more than six years, especially when he was not at fault.

Thus, the Court directed the board to create a temporary post for the last selected candidate in the BPL category. This post was to continue until a regular vacancy is available, and the candidate was to receive all service benefits.

With respect to the petitioner, the Court stated that he had always been ready and willing to join and perform his duties, but he was denied the opportunity by the authorities. Therefore, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to receive full monetary benefits from the date he ought to have been appointed.

Therefore, the Court directed the board to offer appointment to the petitioner and the petitioner was instructed to join the post after completing all the formalities.

Case Name: Sahil Kumar V/s HPSEBL & Ors.

Case No.: CWP No.6529 of 2020

Date of Decision: 06.05.2025

For the Petitioner: Mr.Arun Kaushal, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Ms.Sunita Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Dhananjay Sharma and Mr.Surender Kumar, Advocates, for respondent No.1. Mr.Rohit Chauhan, Advocate, vice Mr.Arun Sehgal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.Narender Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4.

Click Here To Read/Download Order