Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 January, 2019

Author: Rajan Gupta

Bench: Rajan Gupta

CWP No. 29698 of 2018                                                    1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                                      CWP No. 29698 of 2018
                                                 Date of decision : 10.01.2019

Jagdeep Singh
                                                      ....Petitioner

                                        V/s

State of Punjab & ors.
                                                      ....Respondents

BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJAN GUPTA J.

Petitioner competed for the post of Homoeopathic Medical Officer in the scheduled caste category. His name did not figure in the merit list, being at sr. no. 11 in the same. He has preferred this petition seeking a mandamus to the authorities to de-reserve six posts which are stated to be lying vacant in view of section 7(2) of The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Service) Act, 2006. According to him, as Homeopathic medical doctors are required in the State of Punjab, it would be in the public interest to offer appointment in the scheduled caste category.

A perusal of the Rules 7(2) of the Act shows that same is a non- obstante clause enabling the appointing authority to de-reserve a vacancy subject to the condition that the said vacancy would be carried forward against a subsequent unreserved vacancy. Admittedly, the State has not invoked the said clause in the instant case. It is, thus, inexplicable why State would be directed to do so by way of issuance of writ of a mandamus. Besides, petitioner has not been able to show that there is such public 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 18:30:36 ::: CWP No. 29698 of 2018 2 interest involved which would require the authority to invoke the non- obstante clause as contained in section 7.

In view of above, petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.

January 10, 2019                                       (RAJAN GUPTA)
Ajay                                                        JUDGE


       Whether speaking/reasoned:                      Yes/No

       Whether reportable:                             Yes/No




                                2 of 2
             ::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2019 18:30:36 :::