The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a valid Below Poverty Line (BPL) certificate issued by a competent authority is sufficient for granting BPL marks during recruitment. The Court held that insisting on a separate income certificate is unjustified and contrary to the rules mentioned in the recruitment advertisement.
Background
The Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited (HPSEBL) published Advertisement No. 1/2018 for filling various posts including Junior T-Mate and Junior Helper (Sub-Station/Power House). The recruitment process included awarding 2.5 additional marks to candidates from BPL families. The petitioner, Sahil Kumar, applied under the General (BPL) category and submitted a valid BPL certificate issued by the Panchayat Secretary and countersigned by the Gram Panchayat Pradhan. The certificate was valid till January 2019.
Read Also:- Himachal Pradesh HC: Contractual Workers Deserve Regularization Despite Delay in Post Creation
Despite fulfilling all the criteria, the petitioner was awarded only 70.73 marks as the BPL marks were not added. Meanwhile, other candidates with similar certificates were granted the benefit and selected.
Sahil Kumar argued that his application met all requirements and that the recruitment advertisement did not mandate submission of a separate income certificate. He emphasized that the BPL certificate alone proved his eligibility, as it inherently indicated that his family's income was below ₹40,000—the threshold fixed for BPL status. The denial of marks, he contended, was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Read Also:- Court Rules Director of Govt Department Ineligible to Act as Arbitrator in Contract Dispute
The HPSEBL argued that since the petitioner’s BPL certificate did not explicitly mention the family income, and no separate income certificate was submitted, he was ineligible for the 2.5 BPL marks. They also cited procedural concerns, such as non-joinder of some selected candidates.
Court’s Observations
"Issuance of a valid BPL certificate inherently confirms that the family's income is below the prescribed limit," stated the bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma.
The Court clarified that the recruitment advertisement required a BPL certificate issued by specific local authorities—not an additional income certificate. Thus, requiring a separate income proof was beyond the scope of the advertisement and against the established norms.
The Court further held:
“Possession of a valid BPL certificate during the relevant period is sufficient to construe that the family income is less than ₹40,000.”
It ruled that Sahil Kumar was wrongly denied the 2.5 marks and should have received a total of 73.23 marks—higher than the last selected candidate in the General (BPL) category, who had secured 72.63.
Recognizing that the other selected candidate had been serving since 2019 and had no fault, the Court directed the HPSEBL to create a supernumerary post for the petitioner.
“No work, no pay principle is not applicable here as the petitioner was unjustly denied employment,” the Court added.
The HPSEBL was instructed to:
- Offer appointment to the petitioner by 15 July 2025
- Provide all service benefits, including seniority and monetary arrears from the original appointment date
- Pay arrears by 31 March 2026, failing which interest at 6% per month would be applied
Case Title: Sahil Kumar v. HPSEBL and Others
