L.P.A.No.250 of 2007 [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Letters Patent Appeal No.250 of 2007 Decided on : March 10, 2009 Mahavir Sehrawat ... Appellant VERSUS State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate for the appellant. Ms.Ritu Bahri, Additional Advocate General Haryana for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** A.N.Jindal, J. : This Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment dated 9.5.2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide which, the writ petition of the appellant – writ petitioner Mahavir Sehrawat (herein referred as `appellant') for issuance of a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the category No.6 of Advertisement No.3, which appeared in newspaper `The Tribune' on 26.10.1998 for the post of Lecturer in Management (Group-B) in Technical Education Department Haryana qua the posts L.P.A.No.250 of 2007 [ 2 ] reserved for SC (Block-A) of Haryana and also quashing the selection of respondent No.4 on the aforesaid post, and also for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the appellant on the aforesaid post, he being at Sr.No.2 in the list of General Category against the posts which were advertised for the SC category, was dismissed. The appellant has averred that there were four posts of Lecturers in Management (Group-B) in Technical Education Department, which were created in the year 1988. However, all these posts were filled from time to time and all the four vacancies were filled with General Category candidates. Later on, one of the lecturers, who was the first regular appointee, namely Virender Malik left his job and the post vacated by him was advertised vide advertisement No.5 category No.2, which appeared in the News Paper “The Tribune” dated 14.2.1995 (Annexure P-1) and it was reserved for Scheduled Castes of Haryana only. According to the Roster Point, only fourth post was to be reserved for Scheduled Castes category. However, one Bijender Singh, who belonged to Scheduled Castes category was selected and appointed as such. Later on, Mukesh Chadha and V.S.Ahlawat, Lecturers were promoted and, thus, two more posts fell vacant. Advertisement dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure P-2), which appeared in the “The Tribune” reflected that one post was reserved for Scheduled Caste (Block-A) of the State of Haryana, which was contrary to the Roster Point as also to the Policy of Reservation, whereas, only 20% posts were to be reserved for Scheduled Castes. Claim of the appellant is that against two vacant posts, advertisement (Annexure P-2) reserving one post for Scheduled Castes was against the principles and the Roster Point. L.P.A.No.250 of 2007 [ 3 ] In reply, respondents No.1 and 2 while admitting the reservation of one post for the candidates of Scheduled Castes (Block-A) category, has contended that if the advertisement for two posts of General Category had been made, then there could be more suitable candidates, perhaps better than the appellant, to apply for the second post. It has been averred by the respondents that their office does not maintain any Roster. There is nothing illegal in recommending name of respondent No.4 for appointment as one post was reserved for Scheduled castes (Block-A) as per the Advertisement No.3 dated 26.10.1998 (Annexure P-2) and accordingly, respondent No.4, who belonged to Scheduled Castes (Block- A) was selected vide result dated 2.12.1999 (Annexure P-6). On behalf of respondent No.4, it is contended that the Department appears to be in collusion with the appellant. In fact, out of the eight vacancies only five were to go to the General Category, on which posts already appointments had been made from the said category on regular basis and three persons, namely; Mahavir Sehrawat, Rakesh Mittal and Ekta Jain have been appointed on ad-hoc basis. In such a situation, the appellant is not entitled to claim any further vacancy for the General Category. The advertisement was made as per Roster on the instructions of respondents No.1 and 2, and, thus, respondent No.4 cannot be put to disadvantageous position, he being selected on the basis of merit in the category of Scheduled Castes (Block-A) category. Arguments heard. Record perused. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is vividly clear. L.P.A.No.250 of 2007 [ 4 ] In fact, two posts; one for General Category and one for reserved category were advertised. The appellant cannot claim the second vacancy to be converted into that of General Category, as a matter of right. He competed over the advertised single post of General Category without any objection. Only after becoming apprehensive and finally having been declared unsuccessful, he raised the objection. The records reveal that respondent No.4 has not been wrongly appointed on the vacancy meant for the category, to which he belongs. The three posts of Lecturers have already been occupied, which belonged to General Category, therefore, now only one vacancy from the said category was to be filled. Moreover, after ten years of the advertisement and appointment of respondent No.4 on the post, the appellant cannot come to contend that the advertisement was not correct. Even otherwise, from the affidavit dated 7.2.2009 filed by Mr.B.L.Arora, Joint Director, Department of Technical Education, Haryana, it transpires that out of the four sanctioned posts of lecturers in Management, three lecturers including the appellant are working on regular basis and one lecturer is working on adhoc basis, for which requisition was placed with the Haryana Staff Selection Commission and recommendations for the 4th post have also been received by respondent No.3, recently and the process of issuing appointment letter is in process. On recommendation made by Haryana Staff Selection Commission, the appointment letter was issued to the appellant and he has joined the Department on 20.4.2007 on regular basis. The appellant had also applied against the advertisement issued by the Commission on 30.12.2002, but at that time as well, he was not selected. L.P.A.No.250 of 2007 [ 5 ] Since the appellant has been accepting the service conditions and the Roster, regularly, so as also competing against the available post/s advertised from time to time, therefore, now he cannot contend that the advertisement made in the year 1998 was not correct. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( UMA NATH SINGH ) ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE JUDGE March 10, 2009 `gian'