Civil Writ Petition No. 5319 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 5319 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.11.2010 Shamsher Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana etc. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kohal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 1056 posts of Science Masters in the year 2006. 131 posts out of these were meant for Scheduled Castes (Male) category candidates. The petitioner belongs to SC (Male) category and had applied for the post for the said appointment. The result of the selection was declared on 15.10.2009 and the petitioner was selected but placed at waiting list No. 8 in the category of SC (Male). All the 131 candidates selected in the category were offered appointment on 24.12.2009. As per the averment made in the writ petition, 8 candidates of SC (Male) category, who were offered appointment have not accepted the offer. The petitioner filed a representation on 10.02.2009 that 8 candidates of SC (Male) category did not accept the offer and, accordingly, offer Civil Writ Petition No. 5319 of 2010 2 be made to the next candidates in order of merit amongst the candidates, who were wait listed. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed this writ petition on the ground that he is entitled to an offer of appointment. In response to notice of motion, short reply has been filed by Daya Nand, Deputy Director Masters Office of Director Secondary Education, Haryana. It is conceded that total posts advertised were 1056 and out of these 131 posts were made for SC (Male) category. The offer of appointment was made to 131 candidates so selected. As per the reply, initially 126 candidates had joined the service as Science Masters. The affidavit also discloses that only 5 candidates did not join the service. Respondent No. 2, thereafter, examined the waiting list and offered appointment to 5 candidates, who were top in the waiting list. It is also averred that all the 5 candidates have joined as Science Masters. The petitioner being at waiting list No. 8 has not been given an offer of appointment. Accordingly, it is stated that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same be dismissed. Mr. R.K. Malik, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the averment made in the petition. As per contents of para 4, the petitioner had obtained information under the RTI Act and has been apprised that 15 candidates, who were selected and offered appointment had not accepted the offer. 6 candidates out of these belong to SC (Male) category. It is then averred that apart from these 2 candidates namely Hari Om son of Hawa Singh and Kuldeep Singh son of Fateh Singh belonging to SC (Male) category were offered the appointment but has not accepted the same. In support, the petitioner has filed an affidavit, Annexure P-4, in this Civil Writ Petition No. 5319 of 2010 3 regard. The counsel, accordingly, would contend that 8 candidates out of the selected have not accepted the appointment and as such the petitioner would have a right to seek appointment being No. 8 in the waiting list. Mr. R.K. Malik has also referred to the information placed on record through replication, where this position has even been concededly by the Block Education Officer. When confronted, Mr. Rathee sticks to the stand the respondents had adopted in the short reply filed in the form of affidavit before this Court. The counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that the respondents have filed short reply only and they be directed to file a parawise reply to the petition. Once the respondents have taken a positive stand before this Court on an affidavit that only 5 persons from the waiting list have been appointed and all the posts 131 posts of SC category have been filled, the same cannot be disbelieved due to some affidavits filed by the petitioner. To disbelieve this stand, one may have to hold an enquiry. If the information as supplied in the form of affidavit is wrong in any manner than the respondents filing reply can be made liable for providing wrong and misleading information. The petitioner would be at liberty to prosecute the person filing the reply. It is not very appropriate for the writ court to go into the disputed question of facts and to hold enquiry in this regard. There is a serious dispute in regard to the number of persons, who have joined and whether all the vacancies have been filled or not. Generally, disputed questions cannot be gone into by writ court. Civil Writ Petition No. 5319 of 2010 4 I am, thus, not inclined to go into this disputed question of facts and would dismiss the writ petition. The petitioner may have alternative remedy of proving the fact and prosecuting if any wrong affidavit is filed before this Court. November 17, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE