IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 14467 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.8.2010. Chet Ram --Petitioner Versus D.H.B.V.N.L and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Manender Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. Respondent-board advertised 791 posts of Asstt. Line Man. Out of these 400 posts were reserved for Scheduled caste, 135 for Ex- service man and 24 for physically handicapped of Haryana domicile. The Board also advertised 250 posts of Shift Attendants out of which 90 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste/Tribes, 16 for Backward Class, 43 for Ex-service man and 7 for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner was appointed as Asstt. Line Man vide letter dated 18.2.1993. The selection was, however, challenged in a number of writ petitions including CWP No. 15558 of 1997 and other connected matters. These writ petitions came to be disposed of vide judgement dated 3.12.2008, whereby a direction was given to the respondents to consider for appointment at least 336 reserved CWP. No. 14467 of 2010 -2- category candidates for the posts of Assistant Linemen and 75 reserved category candidates for the posts of Shift Attendants. In view of the fact that a number of reserved category candidates have higher merit and they are to be selected in General Category. The grievance of the petitioner is that he applied in General category, whereas vide the appointment letter (Annexure P-4) he has been shown to be appointed under the B.C. (A) category. While submitting the joining report (Annexure P-3) the petitioner has specifically mentioned that he belongs to General Cagegory (Brahmin) and not to B.C. (A) category. The petitioner apprehends that unless necessary correction is made, he can be accused of mis-representation. This petition is accordingly filed seeking a direction for respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner under General Category. Petitioner has specifically mentioned in the joining report that he belongs to General Category. The respondents are yet to take a decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, if, the question of status of the petitioner as a General category candidate is decided by the respondents. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation in continuation to his joining report within a period of four weeks to respondent no.1, who shall decide the representation within a period of four weeks thereafter. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 16.8.2010. lucky