CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2758 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2758 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 30 , 2010 EHC Ranvinder Kumar & others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to be considered for detailment to the Lower School Course on the basis of the decision in C.W.P. No.7952 of 2004 titled as Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 5.11.2004 followed in Balraj Singh & others Vs. State of Haryana & others, 2009(1) SCT 589 . The claim of the petitioners was considered for detailment in B-1 Course in the year 2004, but were not detailed on the ground that they were less meritorious. It is also disclosed that the petitioner Nos.1,2, 3 & 4 had secured 33, 32, 32, and 31.5 marks. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2758 of 2010 -2- The petitioners were not detailed in 35% quota because the persons detailed were more meritorious. In view of the law laid down in the Naresh Kumar's case (supra), the seniority-cum-fitness is the criterion for detailing the persons in 35% quota and merit is not to be seen. Thus, the case of the petitioners was not considered properly. Now it is being stated that the petitioners cannot be detailed being over age and the bench mark is now provided in the year 2007, which cannot be applied to the position existing in the year 2004. The case of the petitioners would have to be considered on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness in terms of the law laid down in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra) and Balraj Singh (supra). The petitioners, as per the stand of the respondents, were fulfilling the bench mark, which may have been provided subsequently. There is, thus, no ground to denying consideration for detailment when the person juniors to the petitioner was/were detailed. The case of the petitioners for consideration for detailment against 35% quota would be made out in view of the law laid down by this court. Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioners in view of the law laid down by this Court in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) and in Balraj Singh 's case (supra). Disposed of accordingly. July 30, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE