Satbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2652 of 1997.
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22782 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1996 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 8792 of 1996)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22782 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1996 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 8792 of 1996)
Petitioner: Satbir Singh
Respondent: State of Haryana & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2652 of 1997.
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22782 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1996 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 8792 of 1996)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 22782 of 1996)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 26.9.1996 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P.No. 8792 of 1996)
Judges: J.S.VERMA, CJI & MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 02, 1997
Appearances:
Mr. Pankaj Kalra, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. B.S.Chahar, Advocate for Mr.Prem Malhotra, Advocate for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Reservation – Backward classes – Held as per roster of Block B, the appellant had been properly selected and appointed and termination of his service not justified – Appellant to be accommodated in first available vacancy for backward class.
Reservation – Backward classes – Held as per roster of Block B, the appellant had been properly selected and appointed and termination of his service not justified – Appellant to be accommodated in first available vacancy for backward class.
JUDGEMENT:
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J.:
1. The appellant is a Saini declared as one of the other backward classes in the State of Haryana under a notification dated 5.2.1991. This notification, inter alia, provides that persons belonging to the Saini caste and residing in the State of Haryana will be considered as forming a part of other backward classes in the State of Haryana.
2. Two advertisements bearing No.1 of 1995 and No. 7 of 1995 were issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana for recruitment of candidates to various posts. One of the posts so advertised was that of lecturers in political science. Under Advertisement No.1 of 1995, 15 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised of which one was reserved for backward classes. Under Advertisement No. 7 of 1995, inter alia, 48 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised out of which 10 were reserved for backward classes. Out of these 10, six were reserved for backward classes in the ‘A’ category and four were reserved for backward classes in the ‘B’ category. After the Advertisement 1 of 1995 and before Advertisement 7 of 1995, instructions were issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to all heads of departments and other authorities stating that the reservation for backward classes was enhanced from 10% to 27% and that amongst backward classes, it was decided to create two blocks, Block ‘A’ and Block ‘B’, and 16% of seats would be reserved for backward classes in Block ‘A’ and 11% would be reserved for backward classes in Block ‘B’. There was also a reservation of 10% for ex-servicemen and 3% for physically handicapped. Castes forming part of Block ‘A’ and castes forming part of Block ‘B’ were enumerated. Saini caste was in Block B. That is why the advertisement 7 of 1995 divided the ten seats for backward classes into six seats for backward classes candidates in Block ‘A’ and 4 seats for backward classes candidates in Block ‘B’. After these instructions, therefore, the appellant formed a part of Block ‘B’ amongst backward classes.
3. The appellant applied for the post of lecturer in political science. Both the advertisements were clubbed together in selection of candidates. Advertisement No.7 of 1995 stated that the posts which were advertised under Advertisement No.7 of 1995 were in addition to the posts advertised under Advertisement No.1 of 1995 and those candidates who applied in response to Advertisement No.1 of 1995 need not apply again. Their previous applications would be considered. Thus applications under both these advertisement were clubbed together, candidates were interviewed and selected taking into account the applications under both these advertisements. The appellant was one of the candidates selected in the backward classes category. In the order of merit, he was at, Serial No.5 in Block ‘B’ of selected backward classes candidates. He was given an appointment letter dated 4.4.1996. Pursuant to his appointment, the appellant joined his post on 18.4.1996. However, he received a registered letter dated 11.6.1996 stating that there had been an error in issuing him an appointment letter and the appointment letter was being withdrawn. According to the respondents there was an error in granting an appointment to the appellant because the one post of backward classes candidate which was advertised by Advertisement No.1 of 1995 was erroneously considered by them as forming a part of Block ‘B’ while it should have formed a part of Block ‘A’. Hence the appointment given to the appellant was withdrawn. The appellant has challenged this finding. He has also urged that prior to his being selected and appointed, he was holding the post of lecturer in political science in Rajdevi Multi-Purpose College for Women, Behrian. He resigned from his post in order to accept the appointment offered to him on his selection pursuant to the Advertisements Nos. 1 and 7 of 1995. Now he is deprived of both these posts. He has also stated that he is a physically handicapped person and a sympathetic view should be taken of his situation.
4. Under Advertisement No.1 of 1995, 15 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised while under Advertisement No.7 of 1995, 48 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised, making a total of 63 posts. Since applicants of all these 63 posts were considered for selection after the coming into force of instructions dated 20.7.1995, we will have to take into account the roster prepared under these instructions for reservation of posts for Block ‘A’ and Block ‘B’ backward classes candidates. As per the roster which forms a part of instructions issued on 20th of July, 1995 the following roster points are preserved for candidates belonging to Block ‘B’.
Block ‘B’
“9-18-27 (ESM) – 36-46-54 (ESM) – 63-72-81 (ESM)-89 (PH)-98.”
5. Sixty three posts of lecturers in political science were being filled – fifteen under Advertisement No.1 of 1995 and forty eight under Advertisement No. 7 of 1995. We will ignore roster points 27 and 54 which are for ex-servicemen. Thus upto and including Serial No.63, five roster points are reserved for backward classes candidates belonging to Block ‘B’. The appellant is at Serial No.5 in the merit list of backward classes candidates belonging to Block ‘B’. Therefore, the letter of appointment was rightly issued to the appellant. The respondents were required to consider the total of 63 posts advertised and give roster points in accordance with the roster which forms a part of the instructions of 20th July, 1995. If this is how the appointments are examined, the appellant has been properly selected and appointed. The termination of the appellant’s services, therefore, is not justified.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the appellant in service. The appellant shall be accommodated in the first available vacancy for a backward classes candidate belonging to ‘B’ category at roster point 63. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
1. The appellant is a Saini declared as one of the other backward classes in the State of Haryana under a notification dated 5.2.1991. This notification, inter alia, provides that persons belonging to the Saini caste and residing in the State of Haryana will be considered as forming a part of other backward classes in the State of Haryana.
2. Two advertisements bearing No.1 of 1995 and No. 7 of 1995 were issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana for recruitment of candidates to various posts. One of the posts so advertised was that of lecturers in political science. Under Advertisement No.1 of 1995, 15 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised of which one was reserved for backward classes. Under Advertisement No. 7 of 1995, inter alia, 48 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised out of which 10 were reserved for backward classes. Out of these 10, six were reserved for backward classes in the ‘A’ category and four were reserved for backward classes in the ‘B’ category. After the Advertisement 1 of 1995 and before Advertisement 7 of 1995, instructions were issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to all heads of departments and other authorities stating that the reservation for backward classes was enhanced from 10% to 27% and that amongst backward classes, it was decided to create two blocks, Block ‘A’ and Block ‘B’, and 16% of seats would be reserved for backward classes in Block ‘A’ and 11% would be reserved for backward classes in Block ‘B’. There was also a reservation of 10% for ex-servicemen and 3% for physically handicapped. Castes forming part of Block ‘A’ and castes forming part of Block ‘B’ were enumerated. Saini caste was in Block B. That is why the advertisement 7 of 1995 divided the ten seats for backward classes into six seats for backward classes candidates in Block ‘A’ and 4 seats for backward classes candidates in Block ‘B’. After these instructions, therefore, the appellant formed a part of Block ‘B’ amongst backward classes.
3. The appellant applied for the post of lecturer in political science. Both the advertisements were clubbed together in selection of candidates. Advertisement No.7 of 1995 stated that the posts which were advertised under Advertisement No.7 of 1995 were in addition to the posts advertised under Advertisement No.1 of 1995 and those candidates who applied in response to Advertisement No.1 of 1995 need not apply again. Their previous applications would be considered. Thus applications under both these advertisement were clubbed together, candidates were interviewed and selected taking into account the applications under both these advertisements. The appellant was one of the candidates selected in the backward classes category. In the order of merit, he was at, Serial No.5 in Block ‘B’ of selected backward classes candidates. He was given an appointment letter dated 4.4.1996. Pursuant to his appointment, the appellant joined his post on 18.4.1996. However, he received a registered letter dated 11.6.1996 stating that there had been an error in issuing him an appointment letter and the appointment letter was being withdrawn. According to the respondents there was an error in granting an appointment to the appellant because the one post of backward classes candidate which was advertised by Advertisement No.1 of 1995 was erroneously considered by them as forming a part of Block ‘B’ while it should have formed a part of Block ‘A’. Hence the appointment given to the appellant was withdrawn. The appellant has challenged this finding. He has also urged that prior to his being selected and appointed, he was holding the post of lecturer in political science in Rajdevi Multi-Purpose College for Women, Behrian. He resigned from his post in order to accept the appointment offered to him on his selection pursuant to the Advertisements Nos. 1 and 7 of 1995. Now he is deprived of both these posts. He has also stated that he is a physically handicapped person and a sympathetic view should be taken of his situation.
4. Under Advertisement No.1 of 1995, 15 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised while under Advertisement No.7 of 1995, 48 posts of lecturers in political science were advertised, making a total of 63 posts. Since applicants of all these 63 posts were considered for selection after the coming into force of instructions dated 20.7.1995, we will have to take into account the roster prepared under these instructions for reservation of posts for Block ‘A’ and Block ‘B’ backward classes candidates. As per the roster which forms a part of instructions issued on 20th of July, 1995 the following roster points are preserved for candidates belonging to Block ‘B’.
Block ‘B’
“9-18-27 (ESM) – 36-46-54 (ESM) – 63-72-81 (ESM)-89 (PH)-98.”
5. Sixty three posts of lecturers in political science were being filled – fifteen under Advertisement No.1 of 1995 and forty eight under Advertisement No. 7 of 1995. We will ignore roster points 27 and 54 which are for ex-servicemen. Thus upto and including Serial No.63, five roster points are reserved for backward classes candidates belonging to Block ‘B’. The appellant is at Serial No.5 in the merit list of backward classes candidates belonging to Block ‘B’. Therefore, the letter of appointment was rightly issued to the appellant. The respondents were required to consider the total of 63 posts advertised and give roster points in accordance with the roster which forms a part of the instructions of 20th July, 1995. If this is how the appointments are examined, the appellant has been properly selected and appointed. The termination of the appellant’s services, therefore, is not justified.
6. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the appellant in service. The appellant shall be accommodated in the first available vacancy for a backward classes candidate belonging to ‘B’ category at roster point 63. There will, however, be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
