Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Sachdeva And Others vs Kurukshetra University on 10 October, 2012
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rakesh Kumar Jain
Letter Patent Appeal No.1352 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Letter Patent Appeal No.1352 of 2012
Date of decision:-10.10.2012
Devender Sachdeva and others
...Appellants
Versus
Kurukshetra University, Kurushetra and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:- Mr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for the appellants.
A.K.SIKRI CJ.
The appellants herein had filed the writ petition challenging the re-assignment of seniority on the basis of a Government notification dated 16.3.2006 as well as the resolution of the respondent-University affirming the said resolution and acting thereupon. Insofar as challenge to the said notification was concerned, it was predicated on the submission that there was no appropriate examination of the data and the submission was made that the respondent should justify the provision for reservation by placing requisite quantifiable date before the Court. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment has not gone into this issue Letter Patent Appeal No.1352 of 2012 -2- and had dismissed the petition with the observation that once in the notification it is stated that the same is issued after a careful consideration of the matter in the light of the 85th amendment of the Constitution that is the end of the matter. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that this approach of the learned Single Judge is faulty and ignoring the dicta as laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others (2006) 8 Supreme Court Cases 212, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the validity of 85th amendment of the Constitution held that in each individual case, the Court will have to examine and decide the matter in accordance with law. It is further held that the amendment to Article 16 and 335 vide 85th amendment is only the enabling provision and in each case the Court has got to be satisfied that State has exercised its discretion properly, for which State concerned will have to place before Court the requisite quantifiable data in each case and satisfy the Court that the reservations became necessary on account of inadequacy of representation of SCs/STs in particular class(es) of posts, without affecting general efficiency of service as mandated under Article 335 of the Constitution.
Prima facie the aforesaid contentions of the appellants appears to be justified, however, it may not be necessary to go into this issue at all in this appeal because of the reason that another Single Bench of this Court has already set aside this very notification in CWP No.17280 of 2011 vide order dated 07.8.2012 in case titled Letter Patent Appeal No.1352 of 2012 -3- Prem Kumar Verma and others vs. State of Haryana on the basis of the same judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagaraj (supra). Since the said notification already stand quashed, it becomes inoperative, insofar as State of Haryana is concerned for all purposes. Counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment dated 26.9.2011 in LPA No.1749 of 2011 in the case titled State of Haryana and others vs. Kiran Bala and others, wherein same view is taken. In view of this, the notification is set aside and the appeal is disposed of as well.
Sd/-
( A.K. SIKRI ) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
October 10, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) Vijay Asija JUDGE