CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4597 OF 1989 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 22, 2009 Subhash Chander Kamboj .....Petitioner VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....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: Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Ms. Neena Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was one of the applicant for appointment in quota meant and reserved for B.C candidates. He had applied for the post in response to an advertisement issued by Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, “the Commission”) on 15.8.1986. In the result of the examination held in May 1987, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the Commission for appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer. In fact, names of 29 persons were CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4597 OF 1989 :{ 2 }: recommended as per the posts advertised. This included the candidates from the general as well as from the reserved categories of scheduled castes and backward class. Names of 4 candidates were recommended in the category of backward class. The name of the petitioner was at No.18 of the list of candidates recommended and at Sr.No.3 in the category of B.C candidates. Pointing out that the total cadre strength of the Excise and Taxation Officers in Haryana was 111 and 36 were working in the quota of direct appointees against the requisite strength of 56, the petitioner pleads that 3 persons belonging to backward class were required to be appointed as per 10% reservation meant for this category. Out of 29 posts advertised, counsel points out that 29 persons were recommended for appointment but the State decided to appoint 20 persons only. 17 persons out of these 20 have been appointed. Appointment of two persons was under process. The petitioner, who was not appointed would, thus, contend that the post meant for B.C candidate was still lying vacant. As made out in the writ petition, the backward class candidates were required to be appointed on roster point 10, 16, 22, 32, 46 and 56. It is stated that 56th point on the roster point was required to be filled from B.C candidates which will go to the petitioner. The plea of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 belongs to general category candidate and so could not have been appointed on the post meant for B.C category, as per roster point. He accordingly has challenged this selection and has prayed for his appointment instead. Reply has been filed on behalf of the official respondents as well as by respondent No.3. The respondents would seriously join CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4597 OF 1989 :{ 3 }: issue with the petitioner and would justify the appointment of respondent No.3. A reference is made to percentage of reservation made for backward class from time to time. It is then pointed out that the direct recruitment in the State of Haryana was made on six occasions in the years 1972, 1976, 1977, 1979, 1984 and 1989. Out of these six occasions, 9 candidates each were appointed on three occasions in the years 1972, 1976 and 1977 whereas six persons were recruited in the year 1979 and 31 persons in the year 1984 and 20 in 1989. Thus, 27 posts were filled by direct recruitment between 1972 to 1977. The quota for B.C category in direct recruitment at the rate of 2% was nil during this period. Still, 3 persons, namely, Ram Niwas, Lal Chand and Bhim Singh were appointed from this category. These appointments were, thus, in excess of their quota. Respondents would deny that these appointments were not validly made. Accordingly, when six appointments were made in the year 1979, the Government did not make appointment of anyone from B.C category. In 1984, when 31 posts were filled, the percentage meant for B.C was 10%. 3 candidates, thus, could be appointed from B.C category as per the quota. 3 persons were already working in excess. Despite this, three persons, namely, Chandra Bhan, Balwan Singh and Vidya Dhar were appointed. Two posts were given to B.C. in 1989 out of 20 posts and Raghbir Singh Verma and Ram Kishan Keshwani were so appointed. The details are then referred in the following manner to indicate the number of posts filled and those offered to backward class category:- Year Quota No. of posts filled Members of Backward by direct recruitment Classes appointed CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4597 OF 1989 :{ 4 }: 1972 2% 9 Mr.Ram Niwas 1976 2% 9 Mr.Lal Chand 1977 2% 9 Mr.Bhim Singh 1979 (Feb.) 5% 6 None 1984 10% 31 Mr.Chandra Bhan, Mr.Balwan Singh & Mr.Vidya Dhar 1989 10% 20 Mr.Raghbir Singh Verma & Mr.Ram Kishan Keshwani It is accordingly pleaded that the B.C candidates were occupying three posts in excess of their quota. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled to the appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer by virtue of his being No.3 in the merit list from amongst the B.C category on roster point 56, thus, is termed as wholly untenable. The plea of the petitioner that respondent No.3 has been appointed against 56 posts on the roster point is accordingly termed as incorrect. The petitioner has not rebutted the detailed mention made to the number of posts filled and those meant for Backward Class by filing any rejoinder. Thus, this factual has not been disputed in any manner. The B.C category candidates were, thus, in excess of their quota. In any event, only 20 appointments were made instead of 29. Only 2 would fall to the share of B.C category. The petitioner, thus, has not been able to establish either the fact that he deserves appointment to fill 56th point on the roster or that there is a need for appointing another candidate from the backward class category in terms of the reservation made for said category. The petitioner, thus, has not been able to substantiate his cause raised in the writ petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4597 OF 1989 :{ 5 }: The writ petition is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed. October 22, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE