Suresh Kumar And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 11 November, 2009

LPA No. 1162 of 2009                                                  1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH



                        LPA No. 1162 of 2009 (O&M)
                        Date of decision: November 11, 2009


Suresh Kumar and another                                ...Appellants

                        Versus

State of Haryana and others                             ...Respondents


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH


Present:    Mr. Jitender Nara, Advocate, for the appellants.


ORDER

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the order of learned Single

Judge, dismissing the writ petition claiming preferential right against the

posts reserved for female ex-servicemen.

2. Case of the appellants is that they are ex-servicemen and

applied for the post of JBT teachers. As per advertisement, 33% posts were

reserved for female ex-servicemen but since female ex-servicemen were not

available, the appellants sought consideration of their claim for unfilled

posts, which was not accepted on the ground that unfilled posts had to go to

the female dependents of female ex-servicemen, as per instructions.

3. Learned Single Judge upheld the stand taken by the

respondents, relying upon earlier judgment of this Court in Mahender

Kumar and others versus State of Haryana and others 2008 (2) RSJ 674,

upholding reservation for women upto 33%.

LPA No. 1162 of 2009 2

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the stand taken

by the respondents in their reply, which was accepted by learned Single

Judge, is not based on any rule.

6. Though we have not found any ground to interfere with the

view taken by the learned Single Judge, as there could be 33% reservation

for the female ex-servicemen or female dependents of ex-servicemen if

female ex-servicemen were not available, contention that clarification

should have been incorporated in the rules itself, requires consideration.

We have asked Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General,

Haryana, to look into this aspect of the matter whether the clarification

could be expressly made part of the rules. He states that the matter will be

looked into and decision taken within two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

7. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the

State, under the signatures of the Reader of this Court.

                                         (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
                                                  JUDGE



November 11, 2009                            (GURDEV SINGH )
prem                                               JUDGE