Civil Writ Petition No.18715 of 2006 :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 13, 2011 Haripal Singh & another ...Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.J.S.Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr.Sudhanshu Makkar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 & 5. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the action of the respondents and so also the advertisement to the extent that the posts meant and advertised for general category later have been reserved by the respondents with malafide intention to appoint their own candidates. This is stated to Civil Writ Petition No.18715 of 2006 :2: be contrary to the main advertisement issued on 2/5.5.2006 (Annexure P-8). The petitioners have passed the M.A.Examination. They claimed to have done their M.Phil also. Petitioner No.2 is M.A. Ph.D and NET qualified and is working on contract basis in Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra. 7 posts of Lecturers including the subject of History were advertised on 2/5.5.2006. The petitioners claim to be well qualified for the posts for which the advertisements were issued. Two posts were meant for History and two for Political Science. One post each in both the subjects was reserved for general category, whereas one was reserved for Scheduled Caste category. Subsequently, however, another advertisement was issued on 2.11.2006 and the posts, which were advertised for such category in the subjects of History and Political Science, were fully reserved, one for Ex-Servicemen and one for Scheduled Caste category. Thus, general category candidates were debarred from making any application. The allegation is that this was done only to favour a relative of respondent No.4. In response to petition, reply has been filed. It is stated that the petitioners have filed this frivolous petition with an ulterior motive. It is stated that no fundamental or other legal right of the petitioners has been infringed. It is pointed out that there were 15 vacant regular posts out of the total sanctioned post of 48 in the College and the permission to fill up 50% of the vacant regular sanctioned posts in accordance with the existing workload was felt as per the requirement and the posts were accordingly advertised on 2.5.2006 through Annexure P-8. Thereafter the answering Civil Writ Petition No.18715 of 2006 :3: respondent received instructions from respondent No.2 through letter dated 12.5.2006, for the respondents to adopt reservation policy for recruitment in private affiliated colleges. The Institution was also instructed to clear the backlog of reserved posts. On the basis of these instructions, the College was also required to follow the roster point system. The calculation was not to be made subject-wise and the roster point was also explained in the aforesaid instructions. This necessitated issuing of corrigendum to the earlier advertisement issued, whereby the posts in the subjects of History and Political Science were reserved for Ex-servicemen as well as Scheduled Caste. It is highlighted by the counsel for the respondents that both the petitioners are not the applicants either pursuance to the original advertisement or under the subsequent one. The allegation of malafide made against respondent No.4 for appointment of her relative pertains to subject of Geology, where the petitioners are neither the aspirants nor the applicants. The submission by the counsel for the petitioners that the post reserved for general category initially in the subjects of History and Political Science was shifted to other subject only to help out the relative of respondent No.4 is just made baldly, but there is no material placed on record in this regard, which can show any such intention as alleged. The justification for issuing corrigendum has been explained in the reply, which appears to be quite plausible. It is with an aim to satisfy the instructions issued by the Government that the corrigendum was required to be issued and the appointments were made accordingly. I do not find any justification in the cause Civil Writ Petition No.18715 of 2006 :4: agitated by the petitioners when they were not even the applicants and, thus, would lack in locus to file this writ petition as well. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioners titled Army Institute of Higher Education Vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.8961 of 2007, decided on 4.10.2007 dealt with issue of 100% reservation which is not the position in this case. State of Karnataka and others Vs. K. Govindappa and another, 2009(2) RSJ 186 dealt with the issue of reservation of single post. Darbari Lal Tandon Vs. Ravinder Kumari Sain, 2004(3) RSJ 118 was a case of selection by committee headed by father and selection was held to be hit by the principle of natural justice and void ab initio. None of these cases apply to the facts in the present case. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. May 13, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE