ANIL GULERIA Vs. HIMACHAL PRADESH SUBORDINATE SELECTION BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent No. 1 has issued advertisement No. 10/2007 on 14.02.2007, whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. The minimum essential qualification prescribed for the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector is that the candidate should possess a Bachelor's Degree or its equivalent from a University recognized by the State/Central Government. 11349 candidates have applied for the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors. The criteria for filling up the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors was also laid down in the advertisement dated 14.02.2007. It was divided into three parts which read thus: 6. Excise & 1. Objective types screening test of Inspector General English of 10+2 standard, Taxation General Hindi of Matric standard and General Knowledge-200 marks. This test will be of qualifying nature and score of this test will not be taken into account for computing the merit. Subjective test in General English and General Hindi languages including prcis writing, essay writing etc. = 200 Marks. Interview of those who qualify the subjective test. = 30 Marks

(2.) Petitioners submitted their applications for considering their candidatures. The screening test was held on 13.11.2008. The subjective test of those candidates who have obtained the minimum marks in the screening test was conducted on 25th December, 2008. The candidates who qualified the subjective test were called for personal interview conducted w.e.f. 28.01.2009 and 29.01.2009. Petitioners have qualified the screening test, subjective test and were called for personal interview on 29.01.2009 respectively. They have not been found suitable by respondent No. 1, however, respondents No. 3 to 5 were found suitable and were offered appointments to the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors vide Annexures R-1 to R-3 dated 11.02.2009.

(3.) Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5 to the posts of Excise and Taxation Inspectors is against the norms prescribed. He then contended that respondents No. 3 to 5 have applied under O.B.C.(unreserved) and O.B.C.(I.R.D.P.) categories, however, they have been appointed against the General category seats, though they have not obtained minimum 141 marks in the screening test prescribed for the General category. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General and Mr. Dilip Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 to 5 have supported the appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5.