PETITIONER: SATBIR SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/1997 BENCH: J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
JU D G ME N T
MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.
The appellant is a Sainideclared us of the other
backward classin the State ofHaryanaa notification dated
5.2.1991. This notification inter, providesthat persons
belonging to the Saini caste and residing in the state of
Haryanawill be considered asforming a part otherback
classesin the state ofHaryana.
Two advertisement bearing No.1 of 1995and No.7 of
1995 were issued by the Subordinate Service Selection
Board, haryanafor recruitment of candidates to various
posts.One of the posts so advertised was that of lectures
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
lectures in political sciencewere advertisedout of which
10 were reserved for backward classes.Out of these 10, six
were reserved for backward classes inthe “A”category and
four were reserved for backwardclassesin the ‘B’ category.
After the Advertisement 1 of 1995 andbefore Advertisement
7 of 1995, instructionwere issued bythe Chief Secretary,
Government of Haryana to all heads of departments and other
authorities stating that thereservation for backward
classeswas enhancedfrom 10% to 27% andthat amongst
backward classes, it was decided tocreatetwo blocks,
Block ‘A’ and 11% would be reserved for backward classes in
Block ‘B’ and 16% of seats would be reserved for backward
classesin Block `A’ and 11% would be reserved for backward
classesin Block ‘B’ There was also a reservation of 10%
for ex-servicemen and 3% for physicallyhandicapped.
Castes forming part of Block’A’ andcastes formingpart
of Block ‘B’ were enumerated.Saini caste wasin Block ‘B’
that is why the advertisement7 of 1995 divided the ten
seats for backward classesinto six seatsfor backward
class candidates in Block ‘A’and 4 seats for backward
class candidates in Block ‘B’ Afterthese instructions,
therefore, theappellant formed a partof Block ‘B’ amongst
backward classes.
The appellant applied for the post oflecturer in
political science. Both theadvertisementswere clubbed
together in selectionof candidates Advertisement No.7 of
1995 stated that the post which were advertised under
Advertisement No.7 of 1995 were in additionto the posts
advertised under Advertisement 1 of1995 need not apply
again. Their previous application would be considered.Thus
application under both these advertisementwere clubbed
together, candidates were interviewed and selected taking
into account theapplicationsunder both these
advertisements.The appellant was not of the candidates
selected in the backward class category. Inthe order of
merit, he was at serial No. 5 in Block ‘B’of selected
backward classcandidates. Hewas gives an appointment
letter dated 4.4.196. Pursuant to his appointment, the
appellant jointed his post on 18.4.1996.However, he
received a registered letter dated 11.6.1996 statingthat
there had beenan error in issuinghim an appointment
letter and theappointment letter was being withdrawn.
According to the respondent there wasan error in granting
an appointmentto the appellant because theone post of
backward class candidatewhich was advertised by
Advertisement 1 of 1995 was erroneously considered bythem
as forming a part of Block ‘B’ while it should have formed
a partof Block ‘A’ Hence the appointment given to the
appellant was withdrawn. The appellant has challengedthis
finding. He hasalso urged that prior to his being selected
and appointed he washolding the post oflecturer in
political science in Rajdevi Multi-PurposeCollege for
WomenBehrian. He resigned from his post in order to
accept the appointment offered to him on his selection
pursuant to the Advertisements 1 and 7 of 1995. Now he is
deprived of both these posts. He has alsostatedthat
he is a physically handicapped personand a a sympathetic
view should be taken ofhis situation.
Under Advertisement 1 of 1995. 15 posts oflecturers in
political science were advertised while under
Advertisement 7 of 1995 48 posts of lecturersin political
sciencewere advertised, making of total of 63 posts.
Since applicants of all these 63 posts were considered for
selection after the coming into force ofinstructions
dated 20.7.1995, we will have to take into account the
roster prepared under these instructions for reservation
of posts forBlock ‘A’ and Block’B’ backward class
candidates. As per the roster which forms a part of
instructions issued on20th of July,1995 the following
roster points are preserved for candidates belonging to
Block ‘B’.
Block “B’
“9-18-27 (ESM) -63-46-54(ESM)-63-
72-81 (ESM) -89(PH)-98″
Sixty three postsof lecturers in political science
were being filled fifteen under Advertisement 1 of 1995 and
forty eighty under advertisement 7 of 1995. We will ignore
roster points 27 and 54 whichare for ex-servicemen.Thus
upto and including serial No. 63, five roster point are
reserved is atSerial No.5 inthe merit list of backward
class candidates belonging to Block ‘B’ Theappellant is
at Serial No.5 in the merit list of backward class
candidates belonging to Block’B’ Therefore, the letter of
appointment was rightly issued tothe appellant. The
respondents were required to consider the total of 63 posts
advertised andgive 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 property selected and appointed. The
termination ofthe appellant’s service, therefore is not
justified.
The appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents
are directed to continue the appellant in service in
service. the appellantshall be accommodatedin the first
available vacancy fora backward class candidate belonging
to ‘B’category at roster point 63.There will, however,
be no order as costs inthe circumstances of the case.