CWP No.5774 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.5774 of 2010 Date of Decision: 13.10.2010 **** Sukhpreet Singh & Ors. ... Petitioners VS. Punjab State Electricity Board …Respondent **** 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. RK Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. JS Mehndiratta, Advocate for the respondent ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.5774 & 7420 of 2010 as the aggrieved petitioners have raised common questions of law and facts for adjudication. (2). The petitioners are seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to treat the Backward Class category candidates who obtained marks higher than the last candidate in the General Category, as ‘Open Category Candidates’ and offer appointment to the petitioners as Assistant Engineers (Electrical) against the consequential vacancies reserved for the Backward Class category. CWP No.5774 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). To be precise the petitioners’ claim is that there are six candidates of Backward Class category who are higher in merit than the last general category candidate appointed to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). (4). The petitioners’ case is that those six candidates are entitled to be treated as ‘General Category Candidates’ and the consequential six reserved posts now occupied by them are liable to be offered to the next reserved category candidates of Backward Class in the order of merit. The petitioners further submit that they being the next candidates in order of merit in the said reserved category are entitled to be appointed. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, suffice it to observe that if the above-stated plea taken by the petitioners were to be factually correct then there can indeed be no doubt that those Backward Class category candidates who got higher merit position than that of the last appointed candidate of Open Category, are entitled to be treated as “Open Category candidates” and the resultant vacancies will go to the next reserved category candidates in order of merit. CWP No.5774 of 2010.doc - 3 – (6). The aforesaid principles have been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R .K. Sabharwal and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. JT 1995(2) SC 351 as well as in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, JT 1992 (6) SC 273; which have been followed by this Court in various cases including in CWP No.5245 of 1996 (Mahender Singh v. State of Haryana and others); and CWP No.20560 of 2008 (Devender Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr.) (Annexure P5 & P6, respectively). (7). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to verify the above-stated factual plea taken by the petitioners and if found correct to treat these six candidates belonging to Backward Class category as ‘General Category candidates’ and offer appointment to the next candidates in order of merit in the reserved category of Backward Class against the resultant six vacancies. (8). The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 13.10.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.5774 of 2010.doc - 4 –