Dismissed

Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Feb 2010CWP/13661/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two concurrent Writ Petitions filed by persons belonging to Scheduled Caste categories against the State of Punjab. Both petitions sought appointment as Social Studies Masters, alleging the selection process violated reservation norms. The Court found no case for a direction as the State had complied with its reservation policy. The specific prayers were dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.13661 of 1994.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.13661 of 1994 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010

¶6

¶7

Harbans Singh . . . . Petitioners

¶8

VS.

¶9

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶10

¶11

CWP No.14839 of 1994 Date of Decision: 22.02.2010

¶12

¶13

Mohinder Singh . . . . Petitioners

¶14

VS.

¶15

State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶18

¶19

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶20

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶21

¶22

Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶23

Mr. B.S. Chahal, DAG Punjab

¶24

¶25

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶26

(1). This order shall dispose of CWPs No.13661 and 14839 of 1994 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.13661 of 1994.

¶27

2 –

¶28

CWP No.13661 of 1994.doc

(2).

(3).

(4).

The petitioner who belongs to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste, seeks a mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint him as Social Studies Master after reserving a post for the Scheduled Caste category strictly as per the Reservation Policy of the State Government. The petitioner has further asserted that the advertisement dated 19.08.1992 (Annexure P1) is contrary to the Reservation Policy of the State Government.

¶33

Upon notice of motion, the respondents have filed their written statement as well as an additional affidavit dated 09.02.1996 denying the petitioner’s allegations.

¶34

It would be apposite to reproduce the relevant contents of the additional affidavit, which read as follows:-

¶35

“3. That the petitioner applied for the post of Social Studies Master. The Department advertised 1000 posts of Social Studies Masters/Mistresses. Out of which 254 (128 Balmiki plus 126 Ramdasia) candidates of Scheduled Castes category have been selected. The instruction of the Government providing 50% reservation for further division between Balmikis and Ramdasia have been religiously complied with. Full representation has been given to these categories. Hence the plea of the petitioner is not maintainable.”

¶36

3 –

¶37

CWP No.13661 of 1994.doc

¶38

(5). The above-stated factual stand taken by the respondents has not been controverted by the petitioner. That being so, no case to issue any direction as prayed for is made out.

¶39

(6). Dismissed.

¶40

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE

¶41

22.02.2010

¶42

vishal shonkar

Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bikram Jeet Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Seema Rani Vs Distt & Sessions Judge & Ors.

Surjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jugal Kishore and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Pappu Vs State of Punjab, etc.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.