Cut-off date applies only to essential qualifications; valid non-employment and landless certificates produced at document verification must be considered for evaluation marks, even if subsequent to application.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

“(a) That, your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari and quashed the selection/appointment of Respondent no 4.
(b) That, your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent department to give the appointment to the petitioner from the back date along with all consequential benefits.
(c) That, your lordships may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent department to considered two certificates, one is Land Less and second one is Non employment certificate and award 4.5 marks for the purpose of selection or evaluation of documents for the post of Animal husbandry/breeding in the interest of justice.”

2. In the month of February 2020, Department of Animal Husbandry issued an advertisement dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-1) thereby inviting applications for 239 posts of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon, Class-IV, in different category. Afore 239 posts of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon were further allocated District wise. Though 15 seats were allocated to District Sirmaur, but out of 15 seats, one was reserved for disabled person.

3. Petitioner herein, who belongs to District Sirmaur, being fully eligible, applied for one post of Animal Husbandry Attendant/Peon reserved for disabled quota vide application dated 11.03.2020 along with documents. Since petitioner herein was eligible to participate on the strength of his qualification, respondent-department called him for interview/verification of documents/counselling on 05.10.2021. At the time of evaluation of documents, petitioner herein produced two certificates dated 21.06.2021, one non-employment certificate and other landless person certificate (Annexure P-2 and P-3), thereby showing that he is unemployed and does not have any land in his name. On the strength of afore documents, though petitioner herein claimed 2.5 and 2 marks respectively, in terms of advertisement dated 26.02.2020 (Annexure P-1), but such benefit was not given to him by the Selection Committee on the ground that documents adduced on record at the time of making application i.e. non-employment certificate and landless person certificate dated 11.03.2020 were not valid, rather those stood expired and as such, he cannot claim marks on the strength of certificates, which have been issued subsequently.

4. Since the Selection Committee did not award the additional 4.5 marks (i.e., 2.5 marks for the non-employment certificate and 2 marks for the landless certificate), the petitioner was unable to secure a place in the merit list prepared for the one seat reserved under the disabled quota. Against this background, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying for the reliefs, as have been reproduced hereinabove.

5. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Pawanish Kumar Shukla, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that Selection Committee wrongly not granted 4.5 marks i.e. 2.5 marks for non- employment certificate and 2 marks for landless person certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of evaluation of documents. He submitted that had Selection Committee allotted 4.5 marks, as detailed hereinabove, to the petitioner, he would have ranked higher in the merit in comparison to private-respondent No