RAMAN JAKHOTRA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR the post of Primary Assistant Teacher, certain candidates were interviewed. Committee headed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, prepared list, Annexure A -6. Undisputedly, candidates at Sr. No. 2, Sanjita Sahotra, Sr. No. 14, Rashim Sahotra, Sr. No. 42, Raman Jakhotra (Petitioner) and Sr. No. 45, Sheetal Mehra were not interviewed for the reason that being OBC candidates they were found to be ineligible.

(2.) THERE is No. dispute that the post was of general category. In view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bihari Lal Rada V/s. Anil Jain (Tinu) and Ors. 2009 (2) RAJ 7 (S.C) and R.K. Sabharwal and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and Ors. 1995 (3) S.L.J 227 (S.C), non -consideration of the aforesaid candidates only on the ground that they belong to OBC category is obviously wrong. Candidates belonging to OBC category ought to have been interviewed and their cases considered for appointment. To this extent, the challenge made by Petitioner to the process adopted by Selection Committee is sustainable in law. Record reveals that Respondents have been taking contradictory stands in different proceedings in relation to similarly situated persons. In the instant case, it is the stand of the Respondents that Petitioner being an OBC candidate, was ineligible for being considered for the post in question, whereas in OA No. (D) 418/2006, the stand is totally contradictory. As such Respondent No. 1 is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate action against the erring officer (s) who did not consider the Petitioner and other similarly situated candidates eligible for appointment.

(3.) EVEN though her appointment was assailed by the Petitioner in the year, 2006 itself, but however, No. interim order was passed, restraining private Respondent from discharging her duties. However her appointment was subject to final decision is the petition.