CWP No.20086 of 2005 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 20086 of 2005 Date of Decision: 1 - 10 - 2010 Raj Kumar Narwal and another ....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Himanshu Raj, AAG, Haryana. for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 7. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Raj Kumar Narwal and Amar Singh have approached this Court with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 10.11.2005, Annexure P4 and 25.11.2005, Annexure P5, whereby their claim for appointment as Lecturers in English against the posts meant for Ex-servicemen General Category, was rejected. Briefly stated, the petitioners have stated that they are Ex- servicemen and belong to General Category. They have requisite CWP No.20086 of 2005 [2] qualifications of M.A., B.Ed.. State of Haryana advertised 84 posts of Lecturers in the subject of English for employment in the Senior Secondary Schools run by the Education Department. The last date for submission of the applications was 6.12.1999. Out of total 84 posts advertised, 13 posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen category. Out of these 13 posts reserved for Ex-servicemen, 3 posts fell to the share of Ex-servicemen General Category, 2 posts for Ex-servicemen SC-A category, 2 posts to SC-B category, 3 posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen BC-A category and 3 posts to BC-B category. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Sawhney and Ors. etc. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc. etc., 1992(6) SLR 321, the claim of the petitioners that more posts ought to have reserved for Ex-servicemen General category and they should have been appointed against the posts of Lecturers. In response to the writ petition, respondents No.1 and 2 have stated as under:- “1......From the above details it is crystal clear that 3 posts were reserved for ESM General Category candidates. The department have offered appointment letters to all 3 candidates whose names have been recommended by the Staff Selection Commission Sh. Ramesh Chand and Sh.Sumit Singh were offered appointment letters on 10.12.2004 where as Sh.Shyam Lal has been offered appointment letter on 17.3.2005. The name of Sh.Raj Kumar Narwal was recommended by Haryana Staff Selection Commission as Lecturer in English in ESM General category in waiting list at Merit No.1. But as per Govt. instructions dated 7.10.98, the waiting list candidate can claim only against the post which remained unfilled due to non CWP No.20086 of 2005 [3] joining of candidates of original merit list. But in the present case all the 3 posts ESM General category have been filled up from the original merit list. So, far as the petitioner No.2 namely Sh.Amar Singh is concerned who was also applied in ESM General category but his name was not recommended for appointment to the post of Lecturer in English. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get appointment as Lecturer in English in ESM (General) category.” It is further stand of the respondents that at the time when the advertisement was issued and selection was made, the petitioners were to be governed by the instructions which were prevailing at that time and the department was operating a roster of 100 posts and according to which only 3 posts fell to the share of General category. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that instructions dated 14.7.2000, Annexure P1, should be followed in the present case. The stand of the respondents is that the instructions dated 14.7.2000, Annexure P1, shall operate prospectively and cannot be applied retrospectively qua the advertisement which was issued in the year 1999. Further, the matter of fact remains that selection panel could only remain valid for a period of one year. Therefore, this Court will be hesitant to come to the rescue of the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) October 1, 2010. JUDGE RC