IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13285 of 2006 Date of Decision: 7.2.2008 Constable Norang Singh Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Shri R.K.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G. Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 4 Shri Virender Singh Punia, Advocate for respondent No.5 Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner in any case was entitled to be appointed as Constable as he has secured 32 marks, which is more than the marks obtained by the General Category candidate. It is appropriate to mention that last candidate of General Category has obtained 30 marks. It has been contended that even if the petitioner has not disclosed that he is dependent of Ex-serviceman, even then his case was required to be considered in the General Category and in any case the reserve category candidates are required first to be considered Civil Writ Petition No.13285 of 2006 under the General Category and then under the reserved category.” It is not in dispute that the petitioner entered in the Police Force of State of Haryana in the year 1998 against reserved post meant for ex- serviceman/ their wards. His selection was challenged by one Amar Singh, by filing CWP No.10386 of 1999. It was contention of said Amar Singh that he is an ex-serviceman and in his presence, preference has wrongly been given to the petitioner, who is a dependent of an ex-serviceman. That writ petition was disposed of on 28.9.2005. Relevant portion of the order reads thus:- “After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgements passed in Civil Writ Petition No.6325 of 1996 (Naresh Chander and another vs. State of Haryana), decided on 23.4.1997 and Dilwan Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1996 (2) RSJ 514 SC and take a decision within a period of three months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. In case the petitioner fails before the respondents, he would be at liberty to approach this Court yet again.” The petitioner was also a party in that case. In compliance to the order passed by this Court in above mentioned case, order Annexure P/7 was passed. The petitioner was ordered to be de-enlisted from the police force on the ground that he was the last person selected against the posts reserved for the ex-serviceman and preference should not have been given to him being dependent of the ex-serviceman. We feel that order to that extent is perfectly justified. However, while passing the order Annexure P/7, fact, that the petitioner has secured more marks than the last candidate selected in the general category, was not taken note of. Had the petitioner 2 Civil Writ Petition No.13285 of 2006 not claimed post reserved for ex-serviceman, his case would have been considered in general category and in view of his merit, he would have been selected against the post meant for general category candidates. Admittedly, respondent No.5 is the last selected candidate in the general category. He is working for the last 10 years. Entire confusion has been caused by the department by not making proper selection at the relevant time. If at this stage, either the petitioner or respondent No.5 is directed to be de-enlisted, we feel that this will be grave injustice with them. They are serving the police force for the last about 10 years. As per information supplied, their work and conduct is very good. The department might have spent huge amount upon them for the purpose of giving training etc. During arguments, it was brought to our notice that one post, which was filled up in the year 1998, had fallen vacant on account of death of Shri Satpal Singh, Constable No.754, who belonged to the general category. If that is so, we feel that both the petitioner and respondent No.5 can be adjusted accordingly. Only half hearted opposition has been shown by the State counsel for re-adjustment of both the persons, mentioned above. We dispose of this writ petition by issuing direction to the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, to re-consider the entire matter and adjust the petitioner and also the respondent No.5 in view of the facts mentioned above. Order Annexure P/7, to the extent, de-enlisting the petitioner from service, is set aside. Needful be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (Jasbir Singh) Judge February 07, 2008 (Jaswant Singh) gk Judge 3 Civil Writ Petition No.13285 of 2006 4