CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10144 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 27 ,2011 Ramesh Chand Saini .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited, Panchkula and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R. S. Kundu, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Respondent-Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited had advertised 2056 posts of Assistant Lineman on 4.3.1996. 117 posts out of these were reserved for backward class, Block B Category. Written test was held on 5.5.1997. The petitioner appeared and was interviewed. The final result was declared on 23.9.1997. 336 candidates belonging to reserve category of S.C and B.C were not considered for the posts meant for general category candidates, despite their marks being more than the last selected candidate in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10144 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: general category. Number of writ petitions were, therefore, filed to challenge this action. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 3.12.2008 with a direction to the respondents to adjust the reserved category candidates, who were in the general merit and had secured better marks than selected general category candidates. The posts, thus, becoming vacant in the reserved category candidates were directed to be filled from those categories respectively. The petitioner states that he had secured 70 marks whereas the last candidate selected in B.C.B category had got 68 marks, but was not appointed. The petitioner, thus, has filed this writ petition. Reply has been filed. As per the respondents, the petitioner has delayed in making the present approach and has filed this petition after 1-1/2 years after appointment of the candidate who was so appointed after the direction issued by this Court, as noted above. It is also pointed out that selection was made in the year 1997 and the petitioner is seeking appointment after 12 years of the selection. As per the respondents, the delay defeats equity and so the petitioner does not deserve any relief. On merits, it is submitted that Board had advertised 2000 posts and not 2056 in the general category. The petitioner had applied for appointment in the general category. This is so specifically stated in reply to Para 2 of the petition. The petitioner accordingly was selected in the general category. Lateron, selection of Assistant Lineman was quashed by the High Court and these posts were re- advertised on 4.3.1996. The candidates, who had already applied, CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10144 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: were not required to apply again and accordingly the petitioner had not applied afresh. In this background, it is to be appreciated if the claim of the petitioner can now be considered for appointment in the reserve category of B.C.B. The petitioner was unable to point out any material on record to show that he had made any application for appointment in the reserved category. Once the petitioner had applied in the general category, he was to be considered in general category and now he can not make a claim for being appointed in the reserved category of B.C.B., even if he is belonging to said reserved category. This reason would be enough to decline the prayer made in the present writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 27,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE