POOJA KAUSHAL Vs. H.P. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide advertisement No.33-2/2017, respondent- Commission advertised various posts including the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) bearing Code No.586 (Annexure A-5), petitioner being fully eligible for the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) though intended to apply online as OBC category candidate, but since portal did not show the option of OBC category, she applied against the general category. Respondent-Commission after having found petitioner eligible to participate in selection process, issued her admit card vide Annexure A-6 and assigned Roll No.586006120. The petitioner was declared qualified in written test and as such, was called for interview. On 29/12/2018, during interview petitioner claimed that she belongs to OBC category, but was compelled to apply under general category as on that day portal did not show OBC category. Respondent-Commission rejected aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that once category opted cannot be changed subsequently that too after participation in written examination.

(2.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the respondent-Commission, petitioner filed representation, but same was rejected by the respondent vide letter dtd. 9/1/2019 (Annexure A-8) intimating therein that request of petitioner for change of her category from General un-reserved to OBC(UR) vide letter dtd. 29/12/2008 has not been accepted by the Commission as no change of category is allowed after submission of application for the post as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Petitioner was unable to secure place in merit list of general category (UR) and as such, after being rejected, she approached erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application 340 of 2019, which now on account of abolishment of erstwhile H.P. Administrative Tribunal, came to be transferred to this Court and stands re-registered as CWPOA No.6280 of 2020, praying therein for following reliefs:-

(3.) Reply to the petition stands filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been categorically stated that petitioner applied for the post in question as a general unreserved candidate. It is also stated in the reply that petitioner appeared in written examination under general unreserved category and at no point of time after submission of application form, she made request to change her category, but request for first time to change category came to be made on behalf of the petitioner at the time of interview, wherein admittedly she appeared as general unreserved candidate. Respondent-Commission while denying the claim of the petitioner that portal of the replying respondent was not showing the option of OBC category has specifically stated that 720 other candidates of OBC category filled up the form using the same portal.