IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2107 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 14, 2011 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & another ...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.Shalender Mohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to challenge his non-consideration for appointment under the category of dependents of Freedom Fighters for the post of JBT Teacher. Advertisement for 2977 posts of JBT Teachers was issued on 23.9.2004. 7.10.2004 was the last date of submitting the applications. The petitioner applied in the category of Freedom Fighters. The final result of the selection was declared on 16.12.2004 and 2856 candidates were selected. All the 68 seats reserved for ESM (BC-A) category remained unfilled. The petitioner claims that he was fully entitled to the benefit of 2% reservation under Freedom Fighters category against the vacant seats of ESM (BC-A) category. The petitioner filed a writ petition on 17.2.2005, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 3.3.2005 with liberty to make a demand notice, which, the petitioner accordingly filed, which was followed by another demand notice dated 9.8.2005. On 18.10.2005, the Board rejected the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner then represented to the Civil Writ Petition No.2107 of 2011 :2: Chairman, Haryana Swatantrata Sainik Samman Samiti on 21.11.2006. Letter was also issued by the respondents clarifying the position of the latest instructions. The Board had also sought guidance from the office of Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana. After considering all these matters, Secretary of the respondent-Board held that the general category candidate can be considered for appointment for the post of JBT Teacher against the vacant post reserved for ESM-BC category in accordance with the instructions dated 26.11.1985. The petitioner again approached this court on 4.4.2008. He was given liberty to approach the respondents. The petitioner again approached the respondents, but nothing has been done. He has, thus, filed this writ petition to seek direction to the respondents to consider his claim for appointment against the vacant post. Apart from delay on the part of the petitioner in making the approach despite the fact that his claim was rejected in the year 2007, the petitioner, in my view, would not have any valid claim for appointment against the posts, which were reserved for BC-A category since he belongs to general category. The posts of ESM (BC-A) category remaining unfilled cannot be offered to a general category candidate. The submission that petitioner did not come to know of the order passed in the year 2007 would not extend the right of the petitioner to seek appointment after much delay. There is no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. September 14, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE