Merely having an OBC certificate from another state does not confer OBC eligibility in Himachal Pradesh, as clarified by local regulations and court precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Notwithstanding pendency of some applications including CMP(T) No. 477 of 2025, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, matter has been heard at this stage.

2. The Case

2(i). The case set up by the petitioner is that she was born at Farukhabad, Uttar Pradesh and by birth belongs to Kurami Caste, which falls in the category of Other Backwards Classes (OBC) in the State of U.P. Petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with Dr. Mukesh Kumar, R/o VPO Kalwari, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P. during the year 2009. Petitioner’s husband belongs to Kumhar Caste and falls in OBC Category in the State of Himachal Pradesh. According to the petitioner, certificate of belonging to OBC Category was issued to her by the respondents-State Revenue Authorities.

2(ii) Petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken by the respondents for filing the posts of Medical Officers (Dental) in OBC Category in the State of H.P. At that stage, respondent No.5 preferred Bhawana Chaudhary Vs. State of H.P. and others , CWPOA No.5257 of 2020 decided on 06.01.2022, seeking directions to the respondent-State not to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Medical Officer (Dental) in OBC Category in the State of H.P. on the ground that present petitioner belonged to OBC Category in State of U.P.. In theaforesaid writ petition, respondent-State filed reply, supporting the stand taken by the present respondent No.5 that present petitioner was not entitled for benefit of OBC Category in State of Himachal Pradesh. Taking note of stand of the respondent-State, which was in favour of present respondent No.5, her writ petition was disposed of as under having been rendered infructuous:-

“3. Respondent No.4, in its separate reply, has also reiterated the same by stating that “However, State Government vide instructions and clarification issued vide letter No.Wel-(B)-F(1)- 1/2001-Vol-II dated 21.09.2015 (Copy enclosed as Annexure R/1) has clarified that if a woman from OBC category from another State gets a OBC Certificate from the legally authorized entity in the State, it would still not entitle her for the benefits of OBC in the State of Himachal Pradesh as she may not be covered under the State OBC list of H.P. which makes the notified castes in the State of H.P. eligible for an OBC certificate. The above instructions/clarification have already been circulated to revenue authority/concerned authority and as per the above instructions/clarification the respondent No.3 Neha Gangwar is not entitled to avail the benefits of OBC in this State."

4. In this view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed, rendering the petition as infructuous. The same is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.”

2(iii) It is not in dispute that subsequent to the aforesaid decision, respondent No.5 now stands appointed to the post of Medical Officer (Dental) in OBC Category.

In the above background, petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking appointment as Medical Officer (Dental) under OBC Category of Himachal Pradesh.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon Pinki Bagga vs. State of H.P. & Ors., CWP No.8181 of 2021 decided on 20.04.2022, and on that basis submitted that in view of OBC certificate produced by the petitioner, the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioner under OBC category was not in consonance with the law laid down in aforesaid decision.

4. Consideration

4(i). In Pinki Bagga’s (supra) case, petitioner’s candidature had been converted from SC (UR) to General category. The petitioner (therein) had grievance against