JUDGMENT :

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. On 16.07.2002, the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') took a decision to fill up 21 posts of Accounts Officer. The above posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment. The Appellant earned 164 marks in the process of selection. He made the grade, by way of merit, from amongst "backward class" candidates. It is therefore, that he came to be appointed as Accounts Officer, by direct recruitment.

2. Respondent No. 4-Anil Kumar Uppal, had also applied for appointment by way of direct recruitment, in response to the same advertisement (in furtherance whereof, the Appellant was selected and appointed). His candidature was, however, not accepted. It is therefore, that Respondent No. 4 approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'High Court') seeking an appropriate direction to the Board, requiring it to allow him (Respondent No. 4) to participate in the process of selection. By an interim order passed by the High Court, Respondent No. 4 was allowed to participate in the process of selection.

3. On considering the candidature of Respondent No. 4, the Selection Committee awarded him 146 marks. It is therefore apparent, that in terms of merit, Respondent No. 4 could not march over the superior claim of the Appellant. This was so because, whilst the Appellant had been awarded 164 marks in the process of selection, Respondent No. 4 had been awarded only 146 marks.

4. Respondent No. 4, in order to claim appointment, chose to assail the claim of the Appellant by asserting, that the Appellant did not factually belong to the "backward class", and as such, his merit could not be determined with reference to the posts reserved for "backward class" candidates. If he could succeed in establishing the aforesaid position, he would fall in the zone of selection, being possessed of the next highest marks (after the Appellant) from the category of backward class candidates. Insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, the pointed contention of Respondent No. 4 was, that the Appellant belonged to the "creamy layer", and as such, he was disentitled for being considered from amongst "backward class" candidates.

5. The High Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 7660 of 2004, vide the impugned order dated 2.3.2009, arrived at the conclusion, that the Appellant actually belonged to the "creamy layer", and as such, was disentitled to be considered as a "backward class" candidate. In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court took into consideration the income of the Appellant himself, to declare that he belonged to the "creamy layer". The aforesaid determination was rendered by reading down the policy instructions issued by the State Government, on the basis whereof, the backwardness of a candidate had to be adjudged. The aforesaid policy instructions were read down, to include the income of the person concerned, along with the income of the parents of the person, contemplated by the policy instructions.

6. In the present appeal, the Appellant seeks to assail the aforesaid determination rendered by the High Court. It was the vehement contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant, that the judgment referred to by the High Court, for arriving at the conclusion, that the personal income of the concerned individual had to be taken into consideration, was a misreading of the judgment rendered by this Court. It was in the aforesaid background, that we shall endeavour to examine the policy instructions regulating the determination of backwardness of candidates, and the judgments relied upon by the High Court.

7. First and foremost, reference needs to be made to the office memorandum dated 8.9.1993 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension (Department of Personnel & Tra