IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (221) CWP-29772-2024 Date of Decision : September 03, 2025 Chandigarh Administration and others .. Petitioners Versus Pooja and another .. Respondents (221-A) CWP-30468-2024 Chandigarh Administration and others .. Petitioners Versus Pushpendra Kumar Yadav and another .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Mr. Sumeet Jain, Addl. Standing Counsel and Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners in both petitions.

Mr. Yashdeep Nain, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in CWP-29772-2024. (joined through VC)

Mr. R.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for Mr. Sandeep Siwatch, Advocate, for respondent No.1 in CWP-30468-2024.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

1. By this common order, two writ petitions, the details of which have been given in the heading, are being disposed of as both the petitions involve the same question of law on similar facts.

2. In the present writ petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure P-5) passed by the respondent No.2-Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) by which, claim of respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) for change of their category from ‘General’ to ‘OBC’ has been allowed.

3. Certain facts need consideration of this Court, which facts are stated hereinbelow.

4. The respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) competed for recruitment to the post of Constable in the Chandigarh Police in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.12.2015 issued by the Chandigarh Administration in the year 2015. The last date for submitting the application form qua the said post was 31.12.2015. The respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) applied for the post of Constable but inadvertently they filled the said application form in the general category instead of OBC. Thereafter, certain representations were received at the hands of respondent No.1 and other candidate that the information submitted while filling the application form was not correct as such the information qua their category was submitted incorrectly and the petitioners allowed the candidates so as to allow to correct the information supplied in the application form but according to the petitioners, the said benefit was only confined to correction of spelling of the name of candidate or the date of birth of such candidate but no change in the category was allowed.

5. The respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) applied for the change of their category from General to OBC as the respondent No.1 (in both the petitions) had the OBC certificate to their credit prior to 31.12.2015 which was last date for submitting the application form qua said advertised posts. They applied for the change of their category which application was never rejected by the petitioners. Ultimately, the claim of the respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) for the change of their category was rejected and they were directed to be treated under the general category.

6. Aggrieved against the said action of petitioners, the respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for redressal of their said grievance and the Central Administrative Tribunal after appreciating all the facts that petitioners themselves gave a liberty to the candidates to rectify the details submitted in the application form by allowing the applications of candidates for rectification of the details submitted, which opportunity was not given to respondent No.1 (in both the writ petitions) so as to allow them for change of their category from General to OBC hence, the respondents were considered entitled to be considered in the OBC category by the Tribunal especially when, it was established by the respondents that on the last date of submitting the application form, the respondents had their OBC certificate to their credit, direction was given to the petitioners to consider the