The main legal point established in the judgment is that a person's status earned by birth, such as OBC status, cannot be taken away by subsequent developments, and there is a need to remove social inequalities and provide opportunities for socially disadvantaged communities.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. This writ petition is on the Board of this Court for the last five years and the writ petitioner is being dragged from pillar to post and post to pillar by the respondents without any rhyme and reason and because of her no fault. It is painful to record herein that perhaps the fault of the writ petitioner is that she was born in a reserved category – backward family declared as OBC class. The petitioner's father and other relations including her were having the necessary documents. She belonged to disadvantageous family as per the system prevailing in the country. Despite all odds, she came out and obtained academic qualification/degree of M. Phil from Punjab University in the discipline of Botany in the year 2005 (Annexure P- 1), was waiting for the day when she would get employment in the country, particularly in the State of Himachal Pradesh, had seen a ray of hope in the year 2008, when respondent No. 3 issued advertisement notice, dated 28th August, 2008, (Annexure P-2) inviting applications from the desirous and qualified candidates for appointment as lecturers (college cadre) Class-I (Gazetted) on contract basis in various subjects and Botany was one of the subject notified/advertised.

2. After noticing the advertisement notice, the petitioner applied under the category of OBC General and annexed the OBC certificate (Annexure P-3). Examination was conducted on 6th January, 2009, the petitioner was declared successful, her joy knew no bounds, was waiting for interview call and selection, appeared in interview on 28th August, 2009, in terms of interview call letter, Annexure P-4, but was asked to produce a latest certificate regarding her status of OBC and in view of the subsequent developments, was asked to file an affidavit to the effect whether she has lost the status of OBC and does fall under the head “creamy layer”. She filed the affidavit. She also applied for issuance of the certificate, was withheld and was not in a position to file fresh certificate, though she had already annexed the OBC certificate (Annexure P-3) with the application form.

3. Respondent No. 4 - Sub Divisional Magistrate (Civil), Mandi, before whom she applied for issuance of latest OBC certificate, as directed and required, refused to grant the same on the ground that she had married to a family of upper class of Rajputs and perhaps this is the sin she has committed according to the respondents. The petitioner left no stone unturned to get redressal of her grievances but was made to suffer because she has married in an upper class. 4. It is averred that the writ petitioner, by birth, is falling under the OBC category, suffered all sufferings and undergone all odds for the reason that she was belonging to reserved class, i.e. OBC category. It has been prayed that respondent No. 3 be directed to consider her selection under the OBC category and the instructions, dated 15th March, 2005, (Annexure P-8) be quashed. Further prayed that respondent No. 4 be directed to issue a latest OBC certificate in favour of the writ petitioner.

5. The writ petition was presented before this Court on 4th September, 2009, notices were waived by the respective counsel on behalf of the respondents and were asked to file reply. Notices were also issued in CMP No. 6013 of 2009, an application seeking interim relief. The respondents failed to file reply and this Court, vide order, dated 8th September, 2009, by way of interim directions, restrained the respondents from filling up one post under the OBC category, rather commanded the respondents to keep one post vacant/unfilled, was made absolute vide, order dated 20th October, 2009. The petitioner is waiting for the ultimate result of the writ petition.

6. The respondents have resisted the writ petition solely on the ground that the writ petitioner was not eligible at the relevant point of time because she was not having the latest OBC certificate and had lost the said status because