(Oral)

1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

“To issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent department to consider the case of the petitioner against the OBC category and select the candidate against OBC category in view merit of the petitioner by placing the name of the petitioner at the appropriate place in the order dated 19.07.2022 (Annexure P-1).”

2. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 vide letter dated 27.05.2022 invited Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants for appointment against the post of Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis. Out of the posts advertised, 34 posts were to be filled up from the OBC category, including 27 from OBC Open. The petitioner being eligible was also invited for counseling and she did participate in the said process. The petitioner belongs to the OBC open category and at the time of counseling, she had furnished two certificates of her belonging to the OBC category, one from her parental side and the other from her marital side. The grievance of the petitioner is that her name is not there in the list of selected candidates, Annexure P-1, dated 19.07.2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to Annexure P-2, communication dated 27.05.2022, in terms whereof, Director, Animal Husbandry, Himachal Pradesh had called upon all the Head of Offices, Animal Husbandry Department, on the subject “counseling schedule for batch wise counseling of GPVAs on 03^rd, 04^th, 06^th and 09 June, 2022 for filling up posts of Veterinary Pharmacist on contract basis. He submitted that in terms of these instructions, 34 posts were reserved for the OBC category, including 27 for OBC General. Learned counsel also drew the attention to the final merit list of Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants, Annexure P-3 and has submitted that the petitioner belongs to the 2010-12 batch of Gram Panchayat Veterinary Assistants. In terms of Annexure P-3, her name is mentioned at serial No.186 and total marks awarded to her are 64 against the category of OBC. Yet, as per the learned counsel, in terms of the final selection list (Annexure P-1), candidates less meritorious than the petitioner stand selected.

4. Learned counsel referred to one Smt. Babita Devi, whose name is reflected at serial No.109 at Annexure P-1, and who had been selected under the OBC category. He submitted that in terms of Annexure P-3, the name of Smt. Babita Devi is reflected at serial No.189 and marks awarded to her are 63.75, which demonstrates that despite being less meritorious than the petitioner, she was offered appointment under the OBC category, whereas, the petitioner was ignored.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General by referring to the reply filed by the respondents submitted that the merit of the petitioner is not in dispute, but fact of the matter is that when she participated in the counseling process, she submitted two certificates belonging to OBC category. By referring to Para-3 of the preliminary submissions, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner appeared for the counseling on 06.06.2022 and produced one copy of OBC certificate dated 06.07.2017, where, she was shown as Kumari Nirmala, D/o Sh. Daulat Ram and W/o Sh. Madan Lal and in the second OBC certificate dated 24.07.2021 she was shown as Smt. Nirmala, D/o Chandan Singh and W/o Sh. Madan Lal. Both these certificates are invalid. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that in terms of letter dated 14.09.2016 issued by Secretary (SJ&E) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the validity of the OBC certificate was one year and as the petitioner submitted invalid OBC certificates, therefore, she was not considered for the post in issue.

6. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the factum of the petitioner belonging to OBC category could have been easily ascertained by the authorities had they given some reasonable time to th