CWP NO.348 OF 1988 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 5.11.2008 Ajit Singh Bhakna ...Petitioner VERSUS Speaker Punjab Vidhan Sabha & Ors …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: None for the petitioner Mr.SS.Sahu, AAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner claims to be belonging to Backward Class (Swarankar Caste). He was initially appointed as Clerk in the Vidhan Sabha of the erstwhile State of Punjab, but at the relevant time, there was no reservation for the Backward Classes and thus he was appointed as General Category candidate. However, the State of Punjab had notified the policy for appointment/promotion in the Government Departments whereunder at the time of initial recruitment, backward classes were to be given 5% reservation and in promotion 2%. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant on 1.6.69 again without any benefit of reservation. The State Government issued Circular dated 20.4.63 notified reservation for CWP NO.348 OF 1988 :2: backward classes whose family income does not exceed Rs.3600/- per annum. This instruction was subsequently modified vide Circular dated 4.9.74 whereunder the limit of the income was done away with. The aforesaid instruction was further followed by another Circulars dated 11.5.76 and 2.4.81. The petitioner alleges that he was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent Grade II against the Roster Point No.15 which arose on 1.12.84. It is further stated that instead of promoting the petitioner against the post of Deputy Superintendent Grade II, respondent no.3 was promoted treating him as a reserved category candidate. One of the representations filed by the petitioner stands rejected. He has accordingly filed this petition challenging the promotion of respondent no.3 and seeking his own promotion against the reserved vacancy. The respondent-State has disputed the claim of the petitioner primarily on the ground that under the Government Instructions dated 2.4.81, only such employees are entitled to benefit of reservation whose initial appointment was made as reserved category candidate and whose family income was within the prescribed limit at the time of their initial entry into service. It is further stated that the petitioner never applied under the reserved category nor produced any certificate belonging to the reserved category and respondent no.3 who was eligible for such promotion as a reserved category candidate was promoted against the Roster Point. No rejoinder has been filed disputing the averments made in the reply. CWP NO.348 OF 1988 :3: I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-State. It is admitted fact that the petitioner joined the service under general category. As per the Government Instructions dated 2.4.81, only such employees are entitled to benefit of reservation whose initial appointment was made as reserved category candidate. The averments made in the reply by the respondent-State remain unrebutted. In view of the above circumstances, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 05.11.2008 MFK CWP NO.348 OF 1988 :4: