Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana & Others on 25 January, 2013
CWP No. 11667 of 1995 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11667 of 1995
Date of Decision : 25.01.2013
Surinder Kumar Nagpal ........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P. NAGRATH
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. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.C. Bhatia, DAG, Haryana
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. H.M. Mehtani, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
None for respondents No. 3 to 14.
R.P. NAGRATH, J.
The action of the respondents in making selection to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) on the basis of advertisement published in The Tribune on 13.04.1993 (Annexure P-2), was challenged on various grounds but the petitioner's counsel confined his arguments only on the CWP No. 11667 of 1995 -2- plea that the advertisement related to 13 posts from the general category and the name of the petitioner was also at serial No. 13 as per the recommendation of Haryana Public Service Commission-respondent No. 2. Still the appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner.
2. This selection process was for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil) in the Department. The advertisement was issued to appoint 20 temporary Assistant Engineers in PWD Public Health Department out of which 4 posts were reserved for scheduled caste, 2 for backward class and 1 for ESM category. The detailed instructions relating to this advertisement are Annexure P-3. A corrigendum was issued by respondent No. 2, reserving 1 post for physically handicapped person out of general category posts, thereby reducing the number of general category candidates to 12.
3. The recommendation made by respondent No. 2 on the basis of selection process is Annexure P-5. The appointment letter issued to 19 candidates on the basis of this selection process by the Government is Annexure P-6. As per this list the appointment was issued to 12 candidates from general category, 4 from scheduled caste, 2 backward class and 1 under ESM category. One candidate Mohinder Kumar was ultimately selected against 1 post of physically handicapped category, who joined on 05.05.1998 but resigned from service on 24.12.1999. That is, however, insignificant for determining the controversy because once a candidate has joined the service on the basis of selection process, the said vacancy is deemed to have been consumed against the advertisement issued by the Department.
CWP No. 11667 of 1995 -3-
4. The bone of contention of petitioner is that the reservation for physically handicapped candidates in Class-I and Class-II services in the State of Haryana was provided for the first time vide letter dated 20.02.1990 (Annexure P-11) to the extent of 3% and in the 100 point roster the vacancies falling at serial No. 26, 52 and 82 were to be assigned to the physically handicapped candidates as per quota of the post. The above roster point for the physically handicapped candidate is also reflected in the Government letter dated 24.01.1991 (Annexure R-2). It is urged that there were only 21 posts of Assistant Engineers arising after this policy decision Annexure P-11 and, therefore, the question of reserving 1 post, which was to arise at serial No. 26 in the roster for physically handicapped did not arise in this case.
5. The reliance is placed upon the judgment in Ashwani Kumar v. State and others, 1996(5)SLR552 of Jammu and Kashmir High Court. That judgment does not support the petitioner's contention. The question basically would be how many posts were available to be filled after the reservation policy (Annexure P-11) of February, 1990 for physically handicapped candidates was adopted. The Commission advertised 10 pots of Assistant Engineers in this Department on 30.07.1991 (Annexure P-1). 1 post was for general category, 5 for SC, 3 for BC and 1 for ESM. It is indisputable that the above reserved category posts were the backlog of the earlier vacancies. The question would not be whether particular number of advertised posts is the backlog of specific category but certain number of vacancies to be filled were in fact advertised against available vacancies on 30.07.1991. Against that advertisement the required number CWP No. 11667 of 1995 -4- of candidate were selected and appointed, although, the candidate from general category against one post had resigned after he joined the service. Therefore, there were still 30 posts available to be filled after adoption of the policy of making 3% reservation for physically handicapped candidates in February, 1990.
6. The controversy was also raised by respondent No. 1 that in fact 11 posts for the general category candidates were available instead of 12 because the Department wrote a letter to the Commission-respondent No. 2 that there were 3 posts of backward class instead of 2, initially advertised. This letter is dated 19.11.1993 (Annexure R-1). That is a inconsequential factor because respondent No. 14-Dinesh Kumar, a general category candidate, who was at serial No. 12 of the general category in the recommendation made by the Commission, was also given the appointment.
7. There is no merit in the petition.
Dismissed.
January 25, 2013 ( R.P. NAGRATH ) jk JUDGE