Civil Writ Petition No. 17844 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17844 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.02.2011 Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes Employees Association. ....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Staff Selection Commission & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. R.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Patter, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Malik, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 5. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This writ petition has been filed by the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Backward Classes Employees Association through its State President Sh. S.L. Dahiya. The prayer in the petition is for quashing the advertisement dated 8.7.2008 (Annexure P-3), whereby posts of Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant were advertised, on the ground that this is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. A writ in the nature of prohibition is also sought for directing the respondents not to fill the advertised post and for direction to issue fresh advertisement. In view of the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary Civil Writ Petition No. 17844 of 2009 -2- on 25.6.1997, the Scheduled Caste and Backward Classes candidates, who are selected on their own merit, are not to occupy the reserved posts. On this basis, it is stated that out of 2056 posts advertised for Assistant Lineman and 556 posts for Shift Attendant, 336 reserved category candidates had obtained sufficiently high merit to be considered for appointment as Assistant Lineman in General Category candidates, whereas 75 reserved category candidates obtained sufficiently high place for being appointed as Shift Attendant in General Category. It is, therefore, stated that if those candidates were removed from the quota of reserved category candidates, then equal number of reserved category candidates would have been entitled to be appointed creating a backlog of equal vacancies. Accordingly, the advertisement now issued is challenged. The petitioner-organization has not got any locus to make a grievance about the reservation. It is an individual right of an employee to seek either reservation or to challenge reservation. The organization like the petitioner cannot espouse the cause in general as has been done in the present writ petition. Otherwise also in the reply filed, the State has justified the advertisement in the manner it is done. Since the posts advertised have been increased, it has been clarified that when HVPNL sent the requisition to fill up 262 posts out of them 43 posts of Assistant line were reserved for SC and 10 posts for backlog i.e. total 53 posts reserved for SC category. Since there is no backlog in the reserved category in 2329 posts excepts 10 posts for SC category, the prayer made in the writ petition is opposed. Civil Writ Petition No. 17844 of 2009 -3- I find justification in the stand taken by the respondents. There is no case made out for interference. Even otherwise the petitioner do not have any locus to challenge the advertisement as no individual has come forward to make a grievance. In this view of the matter, two judgments referred to by the counsel for the petitioner, need not to be noticed. The writ petition is dismissed. February 23, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE