Supreme Court Cases
Case Law Search
SATBIR SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR  RD-SC 495 (2 May 1997)
J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
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.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.