CWP No.13412 of 1993.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.13412 of 1993 Date of Decision: 07.04.2010 **** Onkar Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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: None for the petitioner Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner, who belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste (Balmiki/Mazhbi), seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police against the reserved post advertised on 30th May, 1993. (2). There is no quarrel that at the relevant time, 25% posts were reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the said reservation was further bifurcated into two sub- categories, namely, Scheduled Caste (Balmiki/Mazhbi) and Scheduled Caste (Ramdasia & others) in equal proportions. CWP No.13412 of 1993.doc - 2 – (3). In this backdrop, the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s claim with the following factual plea taken in paragraph 8 of their counter-affidavit:- “In reply to this para it may be mentioned that Jaswant Singh and Sukhmander Singh were offered the appointment as ASI on the ground that Mazbi Sikh/Balmikies were offered 17 posts whereas 19 were to be given. The Department Selection Committee recommended 17 Balmikies/Mazbi Sikhs and 21 Scheduled Castes of other classes, whereas they should have recommended 19 for Mazbi/Balmikies and 19 for other classes. Jaswant Singh and Sukhmander Singh were offered the appointment whereas two candidates belonging to other Scheduled Caste Category were dropped, who were at the tail. As to the remaining para total reservation in one recruitment is not to exceed 50% so backlog, if any, could be filled up keeping the above ratio in view.” (4). It is further clarified that no candidate, below the petitioner in the order of merit, has been given appointment. Similarly, the petitioner cannot seek appointment in excess of the reservation provided under the Policy, especially when his appointment would be exceeding to more than 50% reservation in the same selection process. (5). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 07.04.2010 vishal shonkar