Allowed¶67

Subhadra Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC9 Oct 2025CWP/10280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP No.10280 of 2024, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., decided 09.10.2025 – JBT Teacher recruitment SC category; caste certificate parental/by-birth basis vs in-laws/marriage basis; counselling 20.11.2023; call letter did not specify by-birth certificate; proof of reservation need not be filed by cut-off date; Pushp Mala (CWP No.3938 of 2023) relied on; reasonable opportunity to cure defective caste certificate; vacancy of JBT (SC) post in District Mandi; DPC/DRC panel expiry; prospective appointment; writ allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to offer the petitioner appointment against the vacant post of JBT Teacher (SC category) in District Mandi within two weeks, the appointment (if accepted) to be purely prospective; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Subhadra Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who remained successful in the recruitment process for JBT Teachers (SC category), was entitled to issuance of appointment order notwithstanding that the SC category certificate produced during counselling was from her in-laws side instead of parental (by-birth) basis. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The call letter dated 02.11.2023 only required an SC category certificate issued by the competent authority and did not stipulate production of a Scheduled Caste certificate on parental/by-birth basis; had respondents wanted a specific by-birth certificate they should have clearly said so in the call letter, so benefit of doubt goes to the petitioner.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

While eligibility as to educational qualification must be possessed by the cut-off date, proof of eligibility to claim reservation need not be submitted by the cut-off date; even if such proof is produced beyond the cut-off date the candidate can be considered for the benefit and cannot be denied relief (principle drawn from Pushp Mala).

¶49

Key takeaways

Rejecting the petitioner's SC category certificate for not being birth-based, without any written communication or reasonable opportunity to produce a by-birth certificate, was a rash and hasty act not justified on these facts, especially as the respondents themselves never specifically required a by-birth certificate at counselling.ratio¶54
Since a post of JBT Teacher falling to the SC category is lying vacant in District Mandi due to non-joining of candidates from both merit and waiting lists (the DPC/DRC panel having expired on 27.08.2025), and the writ petition was filed within two weeks of the result, it is in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience to direct the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner against that vacant post, causing prejudice to no one.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service and recruitment – Contract appointment of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers (batch-wise), SC category – Petitioner successful in selection but appointment order withheld because the SC category certificate produced at counselling (20.11.2023) was issued on her in-laws'/marriage side and not on parental (by-birth) basis – Call letter dated 02.11.2023 merely required an SC category certificate from the competent authority and nowhere stipulated a by-birth certificate – Petitioner already possessed a by-birth SC certificate dated 15.12.2010 and a marriage-basis certificate dated 07.06.2019, both before counselling, issued by competent authority – Held: educational qualifications must exist by the cut-off date, but proof of eligibility to claim reservation need not be submitted by the cut-off date; a candidate producing such proof beyond the cut-off date can be considered and cannot be denied relief (reliance on Pushp Mala Vs. The Registrar General, H.P. High Court, CWP No.3938 of 2023, decided 01.05.2024) – No written communication or reasonable opportunity was given to cure the defect; rejection of the certificate was rash and hasty – One SC-category JBT post found vacant in District Mandi due to non-joining of candidates from merit and waiting lists, DPC/DRC panel expiring 27.08.2025 – Writ petition (filed 12.09.2024) allowed; respondents directed to offer appointment against the vacant Mandi post within two weeks, such appointment to be wholly prospective.

¶1

2025:HHC:34272

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No.10280 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 09.10.2025

¶5

Subhadra Devi …..Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of H.P. and others

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Coram

¶10

Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Petitioner: Mr. Shivom Vashista, Advocate.

¶13

For the Respondents: Mr. L.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Ms. Menka Raj Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.

¶14

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶15

Petitioner participated in a recruitment process

¶16

undertaken by the respondents for filling up posts of Junior Basic Trained (JBT) Teachers (batch-wise basis) and remained successful therein. However, appointment order

¶17

was not issued to her on the account that Scheduled Caste (SC) Category certificate produced by the petitioner during counselling was from her in-laws side instead of parental basis, hence the writ petition.

¶18

1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes.

¶19

¶20

2025:HHC:34272

¶21

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and

¶22

considered the case file.

¶23

3. The case

¶24

3(i). The respondent-Education Department initiated recruitment process for filling up posts of JBT Teachers, on contract basis (batch-wise). Petitioner’s name was sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange of District Bilaspur for the post of JBT Teachers belonging to SC Category. Respondents sent call letter to the petitioner on 02.11.2023 directing her to remain present in the counselling on 20.11.2023. In terms of this communication, petitioner was to bring following certificates on the scheduled date:-

¶25

“1. Matriculation certificate.

¶26

2. 10+2 pass certificate, B.A/B.Sc. Part -III certificate, in case of pass in 10+2 less than 50% .

¶27

3. JBT Training pass /diploma certificate.

¶28

4. TET (JBT) pass certificate.

¶29

5. Certificate belonging to SC/ST/OBC category issued by the competent authority.

¶30

6. Bonafied of Himachal Pradesh certificate issued by the competent authority.

¶31

7. Employment Registration Card.

¶32

8. Character certificate duly issued by the competent authority.

¶33

9. One recent passport size photograph.

¶34

10. BPL/IRDP/EWS certificate issued by the competent authority.”

¶35

¶36

2025:HHC:34272

¶37

3(ii) Petitioner appeared before the Counselling Committee alongwith requisite documents. It is an admitted position of the respondents that during counselling held on 20.11.2023, petitioner had submitted certificate of her belonging to SC Category, however, the said certificate was from her in-laws side. According to the respondents, the SC Category certificate at the time of counselling was required to be produced by the candidate from her parental side (by birth). According to the respondents, this error in the Category certificate produced by the petitioner was pointed out to her during counselling. Despite this, petitioner did not furnish the requisite certificate of her belonging to SC Category by birth.

¶38

The above is disputed on facts by the petitioner. According to her, on being informed during counselling that she was required to produce SC Category certificate by birth i.e. on parental basis, she had immediately made available a certificate of her belonging to SC Category by birth.

¶39

The respondents dispute this factual version of the petitioner. Their pleaded defence is that it was on 29.08.2024, that petitioner had produced her SC Category

¶40

¶41

2025:HHC:34272

¶42

certificate on parental basis, whereas, the result of counselling had been declared on 27.08.2024.

¶43

4. Consideration

¶44

4(i). Petitioner has placed on record SC Category certificate issued to her on 07.06.2019 as wife of Sh. Hem Raj. She has also placed on record certificate of her belonging to SC Category by birth. The said certificate was issued to her on 15.12.2010 by Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Namohal, District Bilaspur. Both the certificates have been appended at Annexure P-4(colly). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a bonafide Himachali. The petitioner, thus, was in possession of SC Category certificate on parental basis, issued to her on 15.12.2010 as also the SC Category Certificate issued to her on 07.06.2019 as wife of Sh. Hem Raj on the date of counselling i.e. 20.11.2023. Both the certificates had been issued by the Competent Authority

¶45

4(ii) Even if respondents’ version is presumed to be correct that petitioner had not produced SC Category certificate by birth/parental basis during counselling, then also in the given situation, benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the petitioner as while directing the petitioner to attend counselling under office communication dated

¶46

¶47

2025:HHC:34272

¶48

02.11.2023, the respondents had not specifically directed her to produce SC Category certificate on parental basis. The only direction issued therein was to bring certificate “belonging to SC Category issued by the competent authority”. According to the respondents, during counseling, the petitioner did not produce the certificate issued by the Competent Authority certifying her to be belonging to Scheduled Caste Category by birth. In case, the respondents desired production of a specific Scheduled Caste Category Certificate (by birth), they should have clearly stipulated such condition in the call letter. Ordinarily, a participating candidate is not expected to be aware of legal requirement that he/she ought to produce certificate of his/her belonging to Scheduled Caste by birth, more so, when this condition was not even insisted upon in the call letter. It is well settled that while eligibility w.r.t.

¶49

possessing educational qualification etc. should be possessed by the cut-off date, proof of eligibility to claim reservation need not be submitted by the cut-off date. Even if proof of eligibility for reservation is produced beyond the cut-off date, the candidate can be considered for grant of benefit and cannot be denied relief. ( Reference :- Pushp

¶50

¶51

2025:HHC:34272

¶52

Mala Vs. The Registrar General, H.P. High Court² ). In

¶53

the instant case, no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner.

¶54

4(iii) Furthermore, it is also not the case of the respondents that petitioner was issued any written communication to do the needful for covering the lapse in the SC Category certificate produced by her from her in-laws side and given some time limit to her to produce SC Category certificate by birth. Had the petitioner been given some reasonable opportunity for the said purpose, she would have been in a position to furnish her SC Category certificate by birth. Admittedly, petitioner is a SC Category candidate by birth as also by marriage. Rejecting the Scheduled Caste Category Certificate produced by the petitioner on the ground of the same having not been issued on the basis of birth and without giving the petitioner any reasonable opportunity to produce a certificate of her belonging to SC Category by birth, appears to be very rash and hasty act that cannot be justified in the

¶55

given facts, when respondents had themselves not specifically directed production of Scheduled Caste Certificate by birth during counselling.

¶56

2 CWP No.3938 of 2023, decided on 01.05.2024

¶57

¶58

2025:HHC:34272

¶59

4(iv) Considering the above facets, vide order dated 18.08.2025, respondents were directed to have instructions as to whether any post in question was lying vacant. Pursuant thereto, learned Additional Advocate General placed on record office instructions dated 08.10.2025 from the Director of School Education, Himachal Pradesh, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

¶60

“In this regard, it is submitted that no post of JBT (SC category) is lying vacant in District Bilaspur. However, one post of JBT (SC category) in District Mandi remains vacant due to non-joining of candidates from both the merit list and waiting, list. The selection committee panel prepared by the Departmental Promotion/ Recruitment Committee (DPC/DRC) has expired on 27.08.2025, upon completion of one year from the date of declaration of final results i.e. 27.08.2024.”

¶61

In terms of above office instructions, a post of

¶62

JBT Teacher, falling to SC Category in District Mandi, is lying vacant due to non-joining of candidates from both the merits list as also the waiting list. The post is still lying vacant as the panel prepared by the Recruitment Committee expired on 27.08.2025 upon completion of one year from the date of declaration of final result i.e. 27.08.2024.

¶63

It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid office instructions have been furnished pursuant to the order

¶64

¶65

2025:HHC:34272

¶66

passed on 18.08.2025 when one year from the date of declaration of the result had not lapsed. The writ petition itself was instituted on 12.09.2024 i.e. within two weeks from the date of declaration of the result. Since a post of JBT Teacher, falling to the share of SC Category, at present is lying vacant in District Mandi, which according to the respondents cannot otherwise be filled up from the merit /waiting list and given the fact position of the instant case, it would be in the interest of justice, equity and good conscious to direct the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner against the vacant post of JBT Teacher SC Category in District Mandi. Also no prejudice shall be caused to anyone by grant of relief to the petitioner.

¶67

5. In view of above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of JBT teacher, SC Category, lying vacant in District Mandi, within two weeks from today. It is made clear that in case petitioner accepts such appointment within next two weeks, the same shall be prospective in nature for all intents and purposes.

¶68

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand dispoed of.

¶69

Jyotsna Rewal Dua October 9, 2025 Judge R.Atal

Subhadra Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhadra Devi v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Doulat Ram Vs the Hpsebl and Others

Guru Dev Vs the State of Hp and Others

Asha Kumari Vs the State of Hp and Another

Ravinder Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

Netar Singh Vs Land Acquisition Officer (Slau)-Cum-Competent Authority and Another

Prem Dass Vs State of Hp