Civil Writ Petition No. 2647 of 1988 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 2647 of 1988 Date of Decision: 12.1.2010. Mohar Singh ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh. Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Surya Pratap Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Addl. AG Haryana. **** ALOK SINGH, J.(ORAL) This petition is filed challenging the order of termination. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk being scheduled caste category candidate against reserved post on adhoc basis as his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange. It is further alleged that the vacancy against which petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis was of permanent nature. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 was appointed being backward class category candidate in place of the petitioner. Appointment of respondent No. 3 was under the dire in harness rules. Petitioner's services were terminated to accommodate Mr. Subhash. As per the petitioner instead of petitioner services of Sher Singh under backward class category should have been made available for respondent No.3. According to petitioner an employee belonging to scheduled caste category can only be replaced by the other regularly appointed scheduled caste candidate and not otherwise. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2 it has specifically been pleaded that no post was reserved for any reserved Civil Writ Petition No. 2647 of 1988 2 category, however, percentage is maintained. It was further pleaded in paragraph-2 of the written statement that The Principal Govt. College, Loharu, inadvertently showed the post for scheduled caste. However, the post against which the petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis has not yet made permanent. It is further pleaded that since Sher Singh obtained restrained order from this Court in CWP No.2527 of 1998 hence his services could not be terminated. It is further stated that Sh. Subhash Chander -respondent No.3 was dependent of Government Employee, who died while in service, was appointed against the reserved post. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the fact that Subhash Chander-respondent No.3 was appointed being the dependent of Government Employee who died while in service against reserved post hence appointment of Subhash Chander in place of petitioner cannot be said illegal. More over since respondent No.3 is working for 20 years it would not be fair at this stage to quash his appointment to accommodate the petitioner. In view of this I find no reason to invoke my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the petition is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) January 12, 2010. JUDGE Reema