C.W.P. No. 6770 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 6770 of 1990 Date of decision: 07.12.2009 Mahender ....Petitioner Versus The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.S. Godara, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider and appoint the petitioner as Store Keeper by considering his case in the General Category. The case set up by the petitioner is, that the respondent-Board invited the applications for appointment to various posts in November, 1989. The petitioner applied for one of the 71 posts of Store Keeper in the general category. According to the advertisement, 36 posts were for General Category, whereas 14 were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 7 for Backward Classes, 12 for Ex-servicemen and 2 for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner was interviewed on 25.11.1989 and was shown C.W.P. No. 6770 of 1990 -2- to have selected against the post reserved for Scheduled Castes. The petitioner being admittedly a Jat by caste, could not be appointed against the reserved post. The petitioner seeks directions from this Court to consider his claim against the General Category. Notice of the writ petition was issued. Reply has been filed by the respondent-Board, wherein it has been specifically stated, that no candidate belonging to General Category having less marks than the petitioner was selected or issued appointment letter. It is submitted by the respondent, that no case is made to consider the petitioner for appointment against general seat in view of the marks obtained by him in the interview. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not been treated fairly, as he was not considered with the General category candidates, but was considered against the seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes, therefore, a different criteria of assessment was adopted in his case than the one adopted for the candidates of General category. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for more than one reasons. The selection is of the year 1989 and the writ petition has thus become infructuous by efflux of time, as it would not be possible for this Court to issue directions to consider the case of the petitioner against General category. He is admittedly ineligible for being appointed to the post. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that different criterion is adopted for General category and reserve category, C.W.P. No. 6770 of 1990 -3- is also an imagination of the petitioner. The selection committee was same, therefore, it cannot be said that different criterion was adopted. There is no material on record in support of this contention. Otherwise also, a positive stand has been taken by the respondent in the written statement, that petitioner's case was also considered against the General category, but he did not come in merit for appointment in General category. No replication to the written statement was filed. In view of positive stand taken in the written statement there is no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge December 07, 2009 R.S.