CWP No.13661 of 1994.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13661 of 1994 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Harbans Singh . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CWP No.14839 of 1994 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010 **** Mohinder Singh . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . 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. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.13661 and 14839 of 1994 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.13661 of 1994. CWP No.13661 of 1994.doc - 2 – (2). The petitioner who belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste, seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as Social Studies Master after reserving a post for the Scheduled Caste category strictly as per the Reservation Policy of the State Government. The petitioner has further asserted that the advertisement dated 19.08.1992 (Annexure P1) is contrary to the Reservation Policy of the State Government. (3). Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their written statement as well as an additional affidavit dated 09.02.1996 denying the petitioner’s allegations. (4). It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant contents of the additional affidavit, which read as follows:- “3. That the petitioner applied for the post of Social Studies Master. The Department advertised 1000 posts of Social Studies Masters/Mistresses. Out of which 254 (128 Balmiki plus 126 Ramdasia) candidates of Scheduled Castes category have been selected. The instruction of the Government providing 50% reservation for further division between Balmikis and Ramdasia have been religiously complied with. Full representation has been given to these categories. Hence the plea of the petitioner is not maintainable.” CWP No.13661 of 1994.doc - 3 – (5). The above-stated factual stand taken by the respondents has not been controverted by the petitioner. That being so, no case to issue any direction as prayed for is made out. (6). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 22.02.2010 vishal shonkar