C.W.P. No. 9773 of 2011(O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 9773 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: August 17, 2011 Baljit Singh ---Petitioner versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. H.C.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Mr. Sunil Joshi, Advocate, for respondent No. 5-UOI *** 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The only question raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court expressed in para No. 52 of its judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) SCT 826 would govern and apply to C.W.P. No. 9773 of 2011(O&M) {2} the facts of the present case. 2. The order dated 22.03.2011 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity “the Tribunal”) is the subject matter of challenge in the instant petition. The Tribunal has taken a categorical view that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh's case specifically deals with U.P.Police Services (Reservation for SC and ST) Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act”) and the instructions issued thereunder. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is based on the statutory provisions and the instructions issued therein. It was laid down that in case a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Classes secure marks equivalent to the candidate belonging to general category then merely because he has been given relaxation in age by treating him eligible for the purposes of selection would not be a bar for considering such a candidate belonging to reserved category in general category. In other words, a candidate belonging to reserved category is permitted to consume a general category seat despite the fact that he has been given relaxation in age on the basis that he belonged to reserved category. However, in the present case, the instructions issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training on 22.5.1989 and 1.7.1998 (P-15) would provide otherwise. In paragraphs 2 and 3 of the aforesaid instructions, it has been made clear that if a Scheduled Caste candidate has availed of any relaxed standard like the relaxation in age, then he cannot be considered against a general category seat even if he secures marks equivalent to the general category candidate. The paragraph, which was added on 1.7.1998 clarified the aforesaid situation in unmistakable terms, which is set out below:- “In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard as applied to C.W.P. No. 9773 of 2011(O&M) {3} general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in the age-limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates, etc., the SC/ST/OBC, candidate are to be counted against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.” 3. Once the aforesaid instructions are clear with regard to the application of law, then no doubt is left that the judgment in Jatinder Kumar Sing's case (Supra) would not govern the issue in the present case because it instructions issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training which is a subordinate piece of legislation that would apply. Therefore, a candidate belonging to reserved category, who has availed of the concession of age relaxation cannot be permitted to consume the general category seat. 4. The view expressed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity which warrants interference of this Court. The writ petition does not merit admission and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE August 17, 2011 PARAMJIT C.W.P. No. 9773 of 2011(O&M) {4}