ASHWANI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "Can a person who applies for employment as a scheduled tribe candidate, competes in the test, does better than the general category candidates, be denied employment on the ground that the scheduled tribe quota is full and the person being a scheduled tribe cannot be considered in the category of general category candidates." This is the question which arises for decision in the present case.

(2.) THE Factual Matrix: The Respondent -State of H.P. conducted the combined competitive examination for recruitment to the H.P. Administrative Services for the year 2006. The preliminary examination was conducted on 22.07.2007. Petitioner No. 1 has withdrawn from the petition and therefore, we are concerned only with Petitioner No. 2. It is not disputed that he was qualified to appear in the said examination. The Petitioner No. 2 belongs to the scheduled tribe and appeared in the said examination as a scheduled tribe candidate. He scored 236 marks in the preliminary examination whereas the cut off for the general category was 212 marks. Therefore, even if he had not applied as a scheduled tribe candidate he would have cleared the preliminary examination as a general category candidate. The Petitioner thereafter appeared in the main examination. It is not disputed that the cut off for general category candidates in the main examination was 490 marks whereas for scheduled tribe candidates the cut off was 467 marks. The Petitioner had obtained 524 marks in the main examination. As such, it is apparent that he would have been called for the interview even if he was appearing as a general candidate.

(3.) THE Legal Issues. Shri B.C.Negi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the system followed by the H.P.Public Service Commission and the State is totally illegal. According to him No. material has been placed on record to show that two scheduled tribe candidates selected, who admittedly had very high scores got the benefit of being scheduled tribe candidates, therefore, they should have been treated and appointed against the general category. In the alternative, he submits that the Petitioner both in the preliminary and in the written examination had scored higher marks than the cut off marks required for general category candidates and the Petitioner could not have been denied the benefit only on the ground that two scheduled tribe candidates had already been appointed.