Himachal Pradesh High Court
Partap Singh vs State Of Hp & Ors on 2 June, 2016
Bench: Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Tarlok Singh Chauhan
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
LPA No.51 of 2011
Reserved on: 23.5.2016
Date of decision: 2 .6.2016
Partap Singh ...Appellant.
Versus
State of HP & ors ...Respondents
of
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
rt Whether approved for reporting?1Yes. For the Appellant: Mr.Sunil Mohan Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr.Anup Rattan, Mr. M.A. Khan, Mr. R.M. Bisht, Additional Advocate Generals and Mr. Kush Sharma, Dy AG, for respondents 1 to 3.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India, with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.
The moot question involved in this appeal is as to whether reservation provided under Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short the 'Act', 1995) is available even on promotion.
2. Since the issue is predominantly a legal one therefore, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail, suffice it to observe that the petitioner, after completing his Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 2matriculation, was appointed as Clerk in the office of .
Divisional Forest Officer, Renuka Division against vacancy reserved for physically handicapped person and had filed a writ petition seeking direction to the respondent-State to grant reservation even while making promotion to the next of higher post. Petition came to be dismissed by the learned writ court, giving rise to the present appeal.
rt We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.
3. Sh.Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently argue that the issue involved in the appeal is no longer res integra in view of the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Viklang Sang, Haryana Vs State of Haryana & ors, CWP No. 12741 of 2009, decided on 18th March, 2010, wherein it was held that that the court must adopt a liberal interpretation which advances the achievement of the object of the act and, therefore, denying reservation of 3% in promotional avenues would defeat the object of the act and at the same time would be contrary to the mandate of directive principles contained in Articles 38 and 41 of the Constitution of India.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 34. We really need not delve any longer on the .
question raised in this petition, as the same stands squarely answered against the appellant by a learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Arun Singhvi Vs. New India Assurance, Civil Special Appeal (W) No.628 of 2010, of decided on 4.11.2015.
5. rt At the outset, we may note that the learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in National Confederation for Development of Disabled & anr Vs. Union of India & ors, (PIL) No.106/2000, decided on 4.12.2013, based on its interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & anr Vs. National Federation of the Blind and ors (2013) 10 SCC 772, held that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed that 3% reservation under the Act is to be computed on the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength, the same would include the vacancies to be filled in by nomination and vacancies to be filled in by promotion. This decision was assailed in SLP (C )...CC No.13344/2014 in case titled Union of India & ors Vs. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & anr and was rejected vide order dated 12.9.2014.
6. We may also note that the judgment rendered by the learned Bombay High Court was thereafter considered ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 4 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation of .
The Blind Vs. Sanjay Kothari, 2015 (9) SCALE 611 and all these decisions have thereafter been considered by a learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Arun Singhvi's case (supra). Relevant paras read thus:
of "Strong reliance was placed on judgment of Bombay High Court in National Confederation for Development of Disabled rt & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. : Public Interest Litigation No. 106/2000 decided on 04.12.2013, wherein, Bombay High Court based on its interpretation of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind & Ors. : (2013) 10 SCC 772 came to the conclusion that as Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed that 3% reservation under the Act is to be computed on the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength, the same include the vacancies to be filled in by nomination and vacancies to be filled in by promotion; it was submitted that Special Leave Petition (C)... CC No. 13344/2014 : Union of India & Ors. v. National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. was rejected by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 12.09.2014 and, therefore, the issue raised in the writ petition stands squarely covered by the said judgment.
Further reliance was placed on Government of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta & Anr. : 2011 AIR SCW 416, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. U.O.I. & Anr. : 2014 AIR SCW 3683, National Federation of the Blind v. Union of India & Ors. : Writ Petition (C) No. 15828/2006 decided on 12.09.2014 by Delhi High Court, Union of India & Anr. v. Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors. : 2010 AIR SCW 2103 and State of Kerala & Ors. v. K. Prasad & Anr. : 2007 (7) SRJ 493.
It was prayed that in view of the interpretation put by Bombay High Court in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra) on provisions of Section 33 of the Act based on the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra), the appeal may be allowed and the respondents be directed to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 5 provide for reservation to persons with disabilities for promotion to the cadre of Class-I Officer and the Promotion .
Policy to the extent contrary be set aside with all consequential benefits to the appellant.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant were vehemently opposed by learned counsel for the respondent Company; it was submitted that the reservation for of persons with disabilities is covered by the instructions issued by the Government in this regard from time to time and the Government instructions nowhere provide for grant of reservation to persons with disabilities in Group-A or Group-B rt posts and as admittedly cadre of Class-I Officer is Group-A post, the appellant is not entitled to claim any reservation; it was further submitted that the provisions of the Act nowhere provides for grant of reservation in promotions and provisions of Section 47(2) of the Act only provides that persons with disabilities would not be discriminated against in promotion, which provision cannot be construed to mean that the same provides for reservation in promotions across the board; the Government instructions provide for reservation in promotions qua Group-C and D posts and the same has been provided for by the respondent Company.
Reference was made to the Policy instructions by the Government issued from time to time providing for reservations for persons with disabilities; it was submitted that subsequent to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra), wherein, certain provisions of Office Memorandum ('OM') dated 29.12.2005 were struck down by Hon'ble Supreme Court nowhere provides for reservation in Group-A and Group-B posts and, therefore, the appellant cannot claim any right in this regard.
It was submitted that the judgment of Bombay High Court in National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra) has apparently wrongly interpreted the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) and, therefore, the same does not lay down correct law and merely because Special Leave Petition against the judgment of Bombay High Court has been rejected, the same ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 6 does not become a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India; it was prayed that the judgment passed .
by learned Single Judge does not call for any interference and the same deserves to be upheld.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and placed during the course of of submissions.
The Promotion Policy of the respondent Company, in so far as relevant, regarding applicability of reservations for SC/ST rt employees and persons with disability and which has been challenged in the present proceedings, read as under:-
"19. Special provisions for SC/ST employees and Persons with Disability:
In order to increase opportunities of promotions and to safeguard the interests of employees belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Persons with Disability, the following reservations, concessions and relaxations are made available to them in the matter of promotions from the Subordinate Staff, within Clerical Staff cadres and from clerical Cadres to Scale-I officers grade:
a)- .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
b)- As per the guidelines of Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India issued on the subject from time to time, 3% reservation for persons with disability (1% each of Visual disability, Hearing disability and Locomotor disability) (whilst undertaking promotion exercise for promotion to the cadre of Assistant/Senior Assistant.
The applicability of the reservation, will however, be limited to the promotion being made to those posts that are identified as being capable of being filled / held by appropriate category of Persons with Disability."
The Government OM dated 20.11.1989, which was issued prior to coming into force of the Act provided as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 7"The undersigned is directed to say that the Government has under consideration a proposal to .
introduce reservation in favour of the physically handicapped persons in posts filled by promotion. The matter has been examined and it has now been decided that when promotion are being made.
(i) Within Group 'D', (ii) from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and (iii) of within Group 'C' reservation will be provided for the three categories of the physically handicapped persons namely, the visually handicapped, the hearing handicapped and the rt orthopedically handicapped The applicability reservation, will, however, be limited to the promotions being of the made to those posts that are identified as being capable of being filled/held by the appropriate category of physically handicapped."
The said OM was clarified by another OM dated 16.02.2000, inter alia, indicating that there is no reservation in promotion for physically handicapped persons when promotions are made from Group-C to Group-B within Group-B and Group-B to Group-A. The said OM dated 20.11.1989 was subsequently amended by OM dated 29.12.2005; the OM of 2005 provided the following qua the reservation in promotion:-
"QUANTUM OF RESERVATION
(i) .... .... .... .... .... .... ....
(ii) Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group D, and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision,
(ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each disability."
Further, Clause-14 of the OM of 2005 provided as under:-
"14. Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' posts shall be computed on the basis of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment quota in all the identified ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 8 Group 'A' posts in the establishment. The same method of computation applies for Group 'B' posts."
.
The OM dated 29.12.2005 was challenged by National Federation of the Blind before the Delhi High Court, which accepted the challenge and directed the Union of India to modify the OM dated 29.12.2005 being inconsistent with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act; the judgment of Delhi High of Court was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) came to the conclusion that certain Clauses in the OM dated 29.12.2005 were contrary to the intention of rt the legislature and were liable to be struck down and directed the appropriate government to issue new OM consistent with its decision; it was, inter alia, directed as under:-
"55. In our opinion, in order to ensure proper implementation of the reservation policy for the disabled and to protect their rights, it is necessary to issue the following directions:
55.1 We hereby direct the appellant herein to issue an appropriate order modifying the OM dated 29-12-2005 and the subsequent OMs consistent with this Court's order within three months from the date of passing of this judgment.
55.2 We hereby direct the "appropriate Government" to compute the number of vacancies available in all the "establishments" and further identify the posts for disabled persons within a period of three months from today and implement the same without default.
55.3 The appellant herein shall issue instructions to all the departments/public sector undertakings/ government companies declaring that the non-
observance of the scheme of reservation for persons with disabilities should be considered as an act of non- obedience and the Nodal Officer in department/public sector undertakings/ government companies, responsible for the proper strict implementation of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 9 reservation for person with disabilities, be departmentally proceeded against for the default."
.
After, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation of the Blind (supra), OM dated 03.12.2013 was issued by the Government and para 14 of the OM (quoted supra) was modified in the following manner:-
of "Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' or Group 'B' posts shall be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring in direct recruitment rt quota in all the Group A posts or Group 'B' posts respectively, in the cadre."
Vide another OM dated 20.03.2014 it was indicated by the Government as under:-
"4. All the Ministries/Departments/Organisations of the Government of India are requested to compute the reservations for persons with disabilities at the earliest and immediately identify the posts for disabled persons and implement the same without default. However, the following points may be kept in view while computing reservations:-
(i) Three percent of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to Group A,B,C and D shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy; in the posts identified for each disability. Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group D and Group C posts in which direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 75% shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of which 1% each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy; in the posts identified for each disability;"
(emphasis supplied) From the above stipulations made in the various OMs, it is apparent that the OMs/instructions consistently since 1989 have ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 10 provided for 3% reservation of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group-D and Group-C posts, in which, .
direct recruitment does not exceed 75% and the same does not provide for any reservation in Group-B or Group-A posts in case of promotion.
The Bombay High Court in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra) after quoting the of directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as noticed hereinbefore, came to the following conclusion:-
rt "11. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that reservation has to be computed with reference to total number of vacancies in the cadre strength and, therefore, no distinction can be made between the posts to be filled in by direct recruitment and by promotion. Total number of vacancies in the cadre strength would include the vacancies to be filled in by nomination and vacancies to be filled in by promotion."
It was directed that the respondents will have to give benefit of reservation to persons with disabilities in the matter of promotion to posts in the Indian Administrative Services and directed the respondents to act accordingly.
The National Federation of the Blind filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 499/2014 before Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging disobedience of the directions issued by it in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra).
The contentions, inter alia, included that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court provided for reservation in the matter of promotions, however, no steps in this regard were taken by Union of India and, therefore, they were in contempt of the directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
The contentions raised in this regard were considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation of The Blind v. Sanjay Kothari : 2015 (9) SCALE 611, wherein, it was, inter alia, observed and held as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 11"3. Shri Rungta has primarily urged that contempt of this Court's order has been committed by the .
Respondent by not making provision for reservation in promotion and also by not identifying the posts against which the persons with disabilities can be appointed and in not making such appointments. Shri Rungta has submitted that notwithstanding the efflux of a long period of time since the Act came into force and the of directions of this Court dated 8th October, 2013, a large number of vacancies remained unfilled and even those vacancies which have been filled up constitute a rt negligible percentage of persons with impaired vision.
Drawing the attention of the Court to paragraph 51 of the judgment, Shri Rungta submitted that this Court had clearly and categorically held that the provisions of the Act with regard to reservation would apply in the matter of promotion;
however, no steps in this regard have been taken by the Union till date. All such acts and lapses on the part of the Union are in clear breach of this Court's order and, therefore, the appropriate authority of the Union including the impleaded Respondents are liable to be dealt with under the Contempt of Court's Act and Article 129 of the Constitution.
4. Shri Suri, learned senior Counsel appearing for the intervenor has submitted that in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court dealing with the issue of reservation in promotion, orders were passed holding that the decision of this Court in Union of India and Anr. v. National Federation of the Blind and Ors. (supra) provided for reservation in promotion and the special leave petition by the Union of India against the Bombay High Court judgment has been dismissed. In such circumstances, the issue with regard to reservation in promotion, according to Shri Suri, is no longer open and the Union is duty bound to give effect to such reservation.
5. Controverting the submissions advanced by Shri Rungta and Shri Suri, the learned Attorney has drawn our attention to Section 47 of the Act - The Persons ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 12 with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 which is in the .
following terms:
47. Non-discrimination in Government employment ......(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the ground of his 20 disability:
of Provided that the appropriate Government may having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject 25 to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such rt notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this Section.
6. The learned Attorney General has contended that apart from the aforesaid, there is no other provision in the Act dealing with promotions. On the strength of Section 47(2) it cannot be contended that the Act provides for reservations in the matter of promotion. On the Other hand, Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General has placed before the Court the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Union of India dated 29.05.2015 to show the steps taken by the Union to fill up over 15,000 identified vacancies. In this regard the learned Solicitor General has placed before the Court a compilation of the latest position which would go to show that 5629 posts earmarked for persons with disabilities have been so filled up whereas steps have been taken for filling up of over 6,000 posts whereas in respect of another about 3400 posts, the recruitment process is likely to be initiated shortly. The learned Solicitor General has further submitted that the Union is committed to fill up the 6,000 posts for which process has been initiated by the end of December, 2015 and for the 3400 posts for which process is yet to be initiated by February, 2016. Insofar as reservation in promotion is concerned, it is argued by the learned Solicitor General that nowhere in the judgment the Court had any occasion to deal with the said issue;
neither the directions issued by this Court including those in paragraph 51 are capable of being construed ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 13 in the manner in which Shri Rungta and Shri Suri have argued.
.
7. ..... ..... ..... .....
8. ..... ..... ..... .....
9.Insofar as the reservation in promotion is concerned, the issue can be viewed from the perspective of the questions that of had confronted the Court in Civil Appeal No. 9096 of 2013 as set out in paragraph 24 of the order of the Court which is to the following effect:
rt 24. Two aspects of the impugned judgment have been challenged before this Court:
(a) The manner of computing 3% reservation for the persons with the disabilities as per Section 33 of the Act.
(b) Whether post based reservation must be adhered to or vacancy based reservation.
10. Para 51 of the order on which reliance has been placed by Shri Rungta must be viewed in the context of the questions arising for answer before the Court i.e. the manner of computation of vacancies in case of Groups A, B, C and D posts. All that the Court in the aforesaid paragraph 51 has held is that the manner of such identification must be uniform in the case of all the groups viz. A, B, C and D. Nothing beyond the above should be read in paragraph 51 of the Courts' order as aforesaid.
11. Coming to the point urged by Shri Suri with regard to the dismissal of the Union's special leave petition all that needs to be noticed is that the order dated 12.09.2014 dismissing SLP(C) No...../2014 (CC No(s). 13344/2014) is an order of dismissal simpliciter. In the absence of any reasons, we cannot speculate as to the basis for the dismissal ordered by this Court.
12. Having answered the questions arising for determination in the manner indicated above we will have no reason to keep this contempt petition pending any further. The contempt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 14 petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of our conclusions and observations as above.
.
13. Having answered the issue of reservation in promotion in the manner indicated above, the application for clarification filed by the Union of India with regard to the said issue would stand answered in the above terms."
of (emphasis supplied) Hon'ble Supreme Court after noticing the contentions raised and the response of the Union of India categorically observed that its judgment in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) should be read in the context of rt questions arising for answer before the Court and nothing beyond the above should be read in the Court's order and noticing the contention regarding the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra) and dismissal of SLP against it, it was observed that in absence of any reasons the Court cannot speculate as to the basis for the dismissal ordered by it.
Further, based on its observations, the application filed by the Union of India regarding reservation in promotion was also directed to have been answered in terms of its order as noticed hereinbefore.
In view of categorical pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court qua interpretation of its judgment in the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) after noticing the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra) that its judgment should be viewed in the context of the questions arising for answer and nothing beyond and further disposing of the application regarding clarification sought by Union of India for reservation in promotion in terms of its above determination, the interpretation put by Bombay High Court in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled (supra) on the judgment of National Federation of the Blind (supra), despite dismissal of SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be said to be laying down correct law and, therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant primarily based on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of National Confederation for Development of Disabled ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 15 (supra) cannot be accepted. As the contentions regarding absence of reservation in promotions in the OM issued by the .
Government was specifically raised in the contempt petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court and the said contention was negated after noticing provisions of Section 47(2) of the Act, it cannot be said that the absence of reservation in Group-A and Group-B post in the OMs issued by the Government is bad; the Promotion Policy of the respondent Company clearly of stipulates that the reservation would be provided to persons with disabilities based on the instructions of Government from time to time and as admittedly the instructions presently do not rt provide for any reservation in Group-A posts, in which the cadre of Class-I Officer of respondent Company falls, the appellant cannot claim any relief in this regard and it cannot be said that the judgment of learned Single Judge requires any interference."
7 It cannot be disputed that the ratio laid down by the learned Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the aforesaid cases squarely applies to the case in hand.
8. We have minutely analyzed the judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court and are of the considered opinion that the issues involved before the Rajasthan High Court are absolutely identical to the issue involved in the present writ petition. We further are also of the same view as has been taken by the Rajasthan High Court.
9. It is apt to record herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in case titled Neon Laboratories Ltd Vs. Medical Technologies Ltd & ors, (2016) 2 SCC 672, has directed that every High Court must ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 16 give due deference to the law laid down by the other High .
Courts. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"7 The primary argument of the Defendant-Appellant is that it had received registration for its trademark of ROFOL in Class V on 14.9.2001 relating back to the date of its application viz. 19.10.1992. It contends rt that the circumstances as on the date of its application are relevant, and on that date, the Plaintiff-Respondents were not entities on the market. However, the Defendant-Appellant has conceded that it commenced user of the trademark ROFOL only from 16.10.2004 onwards. Furthermore, it is important to note that litigation was initiated by Plaintiff-Respondents, not Defendant-Appellant, even though the latter could have raised issue to Plaintiff-Respondents using a similar mark to the one for which it had filed an application for registration as early as in 1992. The Defendant- Appellant finally filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court as late as 14.12.2005, in which it was successful in being granted an injunction as recently as on 31.3.2012. We may reiterate that every High Court must give due deference to the enunciation of law made by another High Court even though it is free to charter a divergent direction. However, this elasticity in consideration is not available where the litigants are the same, since Sections 10 and 11 of the CPC would come into play. Unless restraint is displayed, judicial bedlam and curial consternation would inexorably erupt since an unsuccessful litigant in one State would rush to another State in the endeavour to obtain an inconsistent or contradictory order.::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 17
Anarchy would be loosed on the Indian Court .
system. Since the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is in seisin of the dispute, we refrain from saying anything more. The Plaintiff-Respondents filed an appeal against the Order dated 31.3.2012 and the Division Bench has, by its Order dated 30.4.2012, stayed its operation.
of
10. Judged in the light of the aforesaid decision, the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of Punjab rt & Haryana High Court in Viklang Sangh case (supra) can conveniently be held to have lost its efficacy and cannot otherwise be considered to be laying down the correct law in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kothari's case (supra), the ratio whereof has been duly considered by the learned Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Arun Singhvi's case (supra). We, therefore, respectfully disagree with the decision rendered by the learned Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Viklang Sangh's case (supra).
11. In view of above discussion, we find no infirmity or illegality in the judgment passed by the learned writ court, whereby claim of the petitioner seeking reservation of 3% in promotional post came to be rejected.
Consequently, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 18 bear their own costs. Pending application(s), if any also .
disposed of.
(Mansoor Ahmad Mir) Chief Justice.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), of Judge.
June 2 ,2016 (sl) rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP 19 .
of rt ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 20:33:21 :::HCHP