BPL Certificate Sufficient To Construe That Annual Family Income Was Less Than Rs 40K: Himachal Pradesh High Court Asks HPSEBL To Offer Appointment To Candidate
The Petitioner had approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the decision of the State Electricity Board.
While asking the State Electricity Board to grant appointment to a candidate, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that the issuance of BPL certificate by the competent Authority and possession thereof with validity during the relevant period, was sufficient to construe that the annual family income of the candidate was less than Rs 40,000.
The Petitioner had approached the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing an Original Application being aggrieved by omissions and commissions on the part of respondent-Board, whereby 2.5 marks as Below Poverty Line (BPL) candidate were not awarded to the petitioner, resulting into his non selection to the post of Junior T-Mate/Junior Helper (Power House) E/Junior Helper (Sub Station). On the abolition of the erstwhile Tribunal, the petition was transferred to the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma said, “It is obvious that for the criteria of income, for issuance of BPL certificate at the relevant point of time was that income should be below ₹40,000/-, and issuance of BPL certificate by the competent Authority and possession thereof with validity during the relevant period, was sufficient to construe that annual family income of the petitioner was less than ₹40,000/-. It was not the business of anybody except certificate issuing Authority to assess or validate or verify the annual income of the family eligible for issuance of BPL family certificate.”
Advocate Arun Kaushal represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sunita Sharma represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Respondent-Board had advertised 605 posts of Junior T-Mate, 145 posts of Junior Helper (Sub-Station) and 49 posts of Junior Helper (Power House)(Electrical) on a fixed contractual remuneration of Rs 7175 per month to be filled strictly as per Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R & P Rules). The petitioner had submitted his application in the General (BPL) category and had uploaded a BPL certificate. On the basis of the evaluation, the petitioner was awarded 70.73 marks, but without awarding 2.5 marks of the BPL certificate, whereas private respondents were selected by awarding BPL certificate marks.
As per the reply of the respondent-Board, the cutoff marks in the merit list of the General (BPL) category were 72.63 marks. The petitioner had filed a representation/application requesting a grant of 2.5 marks to him for a BPL certificate. The respondent Board held that the petitioner had submitted a certificate of BPL family, but there was no mention of annual family income therein, and he had also failed to submit an income certificate indicating that the annual income of his family from all sources was below Rs 40,000.
Reasoning
On the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that all selected candidates had not been arrayed as parties, the Bench held that the same was not sustainable as in service jurisprudence it is not essential to implead every person, who could be affected, but if someone of such affected employees is impleaded then the interest of all is represented and protected. “...and it is well settled that impleadment of few affected employees would be sufficient compliance of principle of joinder of parties and they could defend interest of all affected persons in the representative capacity”, it said.
The Bench explained, “It is also well settled that if non selected candidate challenges the selection, he is under legal obligation to implead the selected candidates as they are necessary parties, but at the same time when petitioner does not raise any challenge to a particular qualification of any individual candidate, rather challenge is with respect to evaluation of certificate and erroneous scrutiny leading to ouster of the petitioner from the select list, therefore all selected candidates are not necessary to be impleaded. However, joining of affected candidate likely to be going to be affected or some of candidates, who are likely to be going to be affected, may be sufficient to be arrayed as parties in representative character.”
It was noticed that the only reason for not awarding 2.5 marks was that neither was it mentioned in the BPL certificate that the family's annual income was below Rs 40,000, nor any income certificate was submitted by the petitioner indicating/certifying that the annual income of his family was below Rs 40,000. “No absurd plea more than the plea taken by the respondent-Board can be there with regard to aforesaid condition”, the Bench held.
The Bench thus held, “Therefore, despite having valid certificate of BPL family, petitioner has been wrongly denied award of 2.5 marks to him. Thus, it is held that petitioner is entitled for 2.5 marks in addition to the marks awarded to him during evaluation and, as such, he has to be considered to have secured 70.73 plus 2.5=73.23 marks, which are higher than the last selected candidate in the General BPL and, thus, petitioner is entitled for offer of appointment to the job applied for by him for which selection was completed by the respondent-Board.”
The Bench thus directed the respondent-Board to offer appointment to the petitioner to the post in reference and provide him with all service benefits, including monetary and seniority benefits from the due date from which other selected candidates from the same process were appointed.
Cause Title: Sahil Kumar v. HPSEBL and others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:18125)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Arun Kaushal
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sunita Sharma, Advocates Dhananjay Sharm, Surender Kumar, Rohit Chauhan, Arun Sehgal, Narender Kumar