HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3304 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011 **** Mandeep Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . 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: Ms. Sonia G Singh, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner applied and competed for the posts of District Manager and Warehouse Manager in response to the advertisement dated 12.12.2010 (Annexure P1) issued by the Punjab Warehousing Corporation. (2). It is averred that the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.3 in the merit list of the General category but has not been given appointment due to the fact that out of three posts one was reserved for General category (Handicapped candidate). The petitioner now seeks quashing of the advertisement dated 12.12.2010 on the plea that it provides reservation in various categories exceeding 50% which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court CWP No.3304 of 2011.doc - 2 – in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Suppl. (3) SCC 217. (3). The petitioner’s case appears to be that should the reservation be confined to 50% that he will be entitled to appointment as a District Manager in the Open category. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that firstly, the petitioner need to approach the respondent-authorities to enable them to explain the reasons, if any, for exceeding the limit of 50% in reservations while issuing the subject advertisement. It is only if the reasons so assigned by the respondents are found to be unsustainable in law that a case to seek judicial review of the administrative action can be made out. (5). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage with liberty to the petitioner to submit a self-explanatory representation to respondent No.2, who, in turn, is directed to consider and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 23.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge