HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16863 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.07.2011 **** Rajwinder Singh & Anr. . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BR Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. BS Chahal, DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the official respondents to offer them appointment to the post of Multi- Purpose Health Worker (Male) in the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. (2). The undisputed facts are that vide advertisement No.1/ 2001, 400 posts of Multi-Purpose Health Workers (Male) were advertised. As per the original stipulation, 165 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes; 20 for Backward Class; 56 for Ex-Servicemen; 12 for Sportsman and 4 for Freedom Fighters. The remaining posts were to be filled up from amongst the open category candidates. CWP No.16863 of 2008.doc - 2 – (3). The selection process continued for a considerably long period and meanwhile the unreserved posts were re- calculated thereby increasing the post of Backward Classes to 47 and proportionate reduction in the category of Scheduled Caste were brought out to 95. This was apparently done to ensure that the maximum limit of reservation should not exceed 50%. (4). The Subordinate Services Selection Board made recommendations on 25.02.2002, the details whereof as mentioned in the affidavit dated 05.04.2011are as follows:- “Sr. No. Category Posts recommended in selection list Posts recommended in waiting list 1. General 200 50 2. Backward Class 47 13 3. Scheduled Caste (other) 45 12 4. Scheduled Caste (Mazbi/Balmiki) 50 15 5. Ex-Servicemen/ Dependent (General) 45 - 6. Ex-Service men/ Dependent (BC/SC) 6 - 7. Sportsmen 8 2 8. Freedom Fighter 4 1 9. Handicapped 8 2” (5). This is an admitted fact that the petitioners were not amongst the candidates recommended for appointment. Rather para 5 of the aforesaid affidavit reads as :- “That the appointment letters were issued to all 400 selected candidates category wise and out of these CWP No.16863 of 2008.doc - 3 – candidates total 13 candidates from general and reserve categories has not join the services. Thus 10 candidates from Sr.No.201 to 210 from general category and 3 candidates from Sr.No.51 to 53 of waiting (SC-1) category have given appointment letters. The name of the petitioner in the waiting list (SC-1) category falls at Sr.No.58. Thus the name of the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment as other 4 candidates were entitled for first job. No appointment letter issued to the junior candidate of waiting (SC-1) category.” (6). It would thus be seen that even if all the candidates placed in the waiting list are given appointment, the petitioners have no chance to get appointment they being quite below in the order of merit among the wait-listed candidates. (7). The petitioners’ contention that it was imperative to select 165 candidates from the Scheduled Caste category cannot be accepted for the reason that as per the categoric stand taken by the respondents there was no backlog and the selection of 165 candidates would have led to excess reservation in violation of the maximum cap of 50% as laid down by the Apex Court. CWP No.16863 of 2008.doc - 4 – (8). There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioners are at the best wait-listed candidates and in my considered view, no legally vested right has been created in their favour to seek appointment as a matter of right especially when the recommendations were made way back in the year 2002 and the selected candidates have already been given appointment. The vacancy, if any, arising subsequently has been rightly advertised to give equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to those who might have become eligible subsequently and might have a right to compete for the posts. (9). For the reasons afore-stated, I do not find any ground in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. 08.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge