IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 11906 of 1994 Date of Decision: 19.1.2010. Porus --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ashish Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) State of Haryana invited applications for the post of Lecturers, Masters in different disciplines vide Advertisement dated 29.7.1991 published in 'The Tribune' newspaper. Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Mathematics under the ex-service man category claiming his father to be ex-service man. On completion of the selection process the petitioner came to be appointed. The selection made was challenged before this Court and this Court set aside the selection made by the selection authority. In an SLP filed by the State of Haryana before the Hon'ble Supreme Court certain directions were issued. Some of the directions inter alia relates to the appointments to be made out of the selectees. The relevant directions are as under:- “ 4. The existing vacancies in the cadres of JBT Teachers, Masters Secondary School, Lecturers Secondary School, C&V Teachers and Social Studies Teachers shall be filled by the State Govt. within one month of the preparation of the merit list. The merit list shall remain alive and operative for a period of one year after the date of its preparation and all the CWP. No. 11906 of 1994 -2- vacancies in the above cadres which may become available during the said period of one year shall be filled only out of the said merit list. Mr. Sibal states that in the ensuring selection the claims of the ex-service men shall be considered in accordance with the Govt. instructions which provide that the ex-service men are to be given preference over the dependents for appointments to the various posts. Mr. Sibal further agrees that the merit list as directed by us in paras above, shall be finalised within six months from today.” Consequent upon the aforesaid directions dated 6.10.1992 the State notified the details of the vacancies during the year in question. Details are placed on record vide Annexure R-1. In so far the discipline of Mathematics is concerned 34 vacancies were shown to be available during the period of one year from the date of selection. Two vacancies were available under the ex-service man category. However, three candidates have been appointed in the said category, though, out of total 34, 27 candidates have been appointed. It appears that no candidate under Scheduled Caste category has been appointed. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time there was 17% reservation for the ex- service men in terms of the Govt. instructions, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-5. According to learned counsel for the petitioner reservation has to be applied on the available vacancies that means 34 vacancies and if, 17% reservation is applied 5 vacancies go to ex- service man category. I am unable to accept this contention. Reservation in the roster is to be applied on the total strength of the cadre of the service. No material has been placed on record to indicate the total cadre strength. However, the CWP. No. 11906 of 1994 -3- instructions indicate the roster points but in absence of cadre strength which slot of the roster was filled up by the ex-service men candidates is not known. It is admitted by Mr. Malik that during the pendency of this petition the petitioner has been selected in a subsequent selection and has been appointed Lecturer in Mathematics. He is also seeking the benefit of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court for his appointment in the selection made in the year 1991. In the reply filed by the respondents the categorical stand is that only three vacancies were available under the ex-service man category and three candidates stood appointed and the petitioner was at Sr. No. 4 in the said category and thus could not be appointed for want of vacancy for the said category. This position is not disputed by the petitioner. In view of the above circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 19.1.2010. lucky