In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.11837 of 2004 Date of decision: 28.7.2008 Constable Gurpreet Singh and another ......Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arvinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr.B.S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that he will not press the claim of petitioner No.2, who belongs to general category. However, on behalf of petitioner No.1, the claim made is that appropriate directions in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the selection of constables for admission to promotion list B-I (P-3) be issued. In the alternative, it has been prayed that petitioner No.1, who belongs to reserved category, be brought on promotion list B-I. It is undisputed that petitioner No.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste category and he was recruited as constable in the Punjab Police on 16.8.1991. For preparing the promotion list B-I, a test was conducted CWP No.11837 of 2004 -2- on 29.2.2004, where 247 constables have appeared and 68 of them cleared the written test. Thereafter, interview was conducted and 29 of the constables were selected. The names of the selected candidates in order of merit have been mentioned in the list Annexure P-6. The name of petitioner, Gurpreet Singh, figured at Sr.No.33 and his marks is 59 ¼. Mr.Arvinder Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has drawn out attention to the names of the candidates figuring at Sr.No.1, 3, 6 and 7 i.e. Maninder Singh, Mangat Singh, Kuldip Mal and Kewal Singh respectively. He has pointed out that these candidates belong to Scheduled Caste or Backward Class category and they have secured 69 ½, 68 ¾, 66 ¾ and 67 marks respectively. He has further pointed out that the last candidate belonging to general category, namely Jiwan Kumar, had secured 60 ¾ marks. His submission is that if the candidates, who belong to reserved category, have secured more marks than the last selected general category candidates then they have to consume these posts meant for general category and not that of reserved category. According to learned counsel, the case of the petitioner has not been considered in the reserved category because those posts have been diverted to meritorious Scheduled Caste candidates, who would consume the general category seats. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Constitution Bench rendered in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1993 (1) SCT 448 (S.C.). The aforementioned CWP No.11837 of 2004 -3- judgment has been relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.7317 of 2004 ( Balihar Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others) decided on 25.9.2004. It is appropriate to mention that the petitioner has impleaded all the selected candidates as respondent Nos.5 to 33 and all of them have been served. The private respondents have not filed their written statement and no one is present on their behalf to oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of above, the writ petition succeeds. The names of meritorious candidates in the Scheduled Caste category shall be considered against the seats meant for general category and the seats which are falling vacant from the Scheduled Caste/Backward Class quota shall be considered by granting benefit of reservation to petitioner No.1 by readjusting the list of successful candidates. He shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE July 28, 2008 anita