Baljit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 10370 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                   CWP No.9673 of 2017 (O&M)
                                   Reserved on 17.08.2022
                                   Pronounced on: 05.09.2022

Baljit Singh                                                 .... Petitioner

                                   Versus


State of Haryana and others                                  .... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR


Present:-      Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate,
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana.

               Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate,
               for respondent No.5.
                                 ----

JAISHREE THAKUR.J

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of

the Constitution of India seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction

especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned letter dated

17.03.2017, Annexure P-4, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner

has been rejected. Directions has also been sought for constituting a fact

finding Committee to look into the illegal promotion given to respondent

No.5-Mahima Singh by extending him undue favour by illegally changing

his category from BC-A to that of SC/ST.

2. In brief, the facts, as pleaded, are that the petitioner, who

belongs to SC category, was appointed as a Constable. B-1 test for further

promotion was conducted in the year 2008. Petitioner and respondent No.5

1 of 5

were shown as having passed the test. However, the name of respondent

No.5 was shown as belonging to SC/ST category whereas he in fact belongs

to the BC-A category. There were 9 posts reserved for SC/ST category and

by changing the category of respondent No.5, he was included in the

approved list and promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector. The petitioner,

being eligible, ought to have been promoted instead of said respondent. It is

alleged that the petitioner submitted various representations against the

illegal promotion given to said respondent by treating him to be in SC

category, however, the same were not redressed. Ultimately, the petitioner

addressed a letter, Annexure P-2, dated 11.07.2016 to the Inspector General

of Police, IRB, Bhondsi, respondent No.2, regarding denial of his promotion

on account of manipulation by changing the category of respondent No.5 and

promoting him under SC category. Since his complaint/representation,

Annexure P-2, was not being decided, he sought permission for personal

appearance before respondent No.2, however, the same was rejected vide

letter dated 15.12.2016. Ultimately, vide impugned order dated 17.03.2017,

his representation, Annexure P-2, was rejected being time barred. The

petitioner thereafter sought information under the RTI Act as to how the

category of respondent No.5 came to be changed, but no information was

forthcoming.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would

contend that the petitioner has been denied his legitimate right of promotion

from SC/ST category in the year 2008, by treating respondent No.5 who in

fact belongs to BC-A category, under the SC/ST category. It is contended

that an enquiry deserves to be got conducted in this matter.

2 of 5

4. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4 has been filed wherein

it is stated that B-1 test for IRB was conducted by the department in the year

2008 and both the petitioner as well as respondent No.5-Mahima Singh

appeared in the test. A merit list was prepared wherein name of the petitioner

was reflected at serial No.10 and respondent No.5 was shown at serial No.2.

Out of 44 seats allotted to Ist IRB, 9 seats were reserved for candidates

belonging to SC/ST category whereas remaining seats were from the General

category. Respondent No.5-Mahima Singh, who belongs to BC-A category,

while being approved in the B-1 test, was inadvertently shown to be

belonging to SC/ST category. Respondent No.5 who was declared as a

Scheduled Caste in fact belongs to the Banjara Caste which is a Backward

Class whereas there is another caste in the name of Bhanjra, which is

declared as a Scheduled Caste and since both the castes are similar,

respondent No.5 was wrongly treated as a candidate of the Scheduled Caste.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 would

assail the writ petition on the ground of limitation by contending that

promotions took place as far back as in 2008 and the writ petition has been

filed after an inordinate delay of about 10 years. He would contend that

respondent No.5 obtained 65.50 marks which is much higher in merit than

the petitioner herein who obtained only 50 marks.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

pleadings of the case.

7. The writ petition, which has been filed after an inordinate delay

of about 10 years after the promotion had been accorded, deserves to be

3 of 5

dismissed at the outset on the ground of delay and laches. It is an admitted

fact that a merit list had been prepared in the year 2008 reflecting the name

of respondent No.5 at serial No.2 with 65.5 marks and the petitioner with 50

marks at serial No.10. The petitioner chose not to challenge the said

promotion order at the relevant time and sat back having accepted the same.

He approached the authorities concerned for the first time seeking

information under the Right to Information Act, in the year 2011 requesting

as to whether Mahima Singh, respondent No.5, was promoted by giving him

benefit of reservation and as to which category he belongs. The information

was denied by the Commandant citing government notification which had

exempted information being supplied of persons belonging to Crime Branch

HAP Security/Telecom, IRB and Commando. Again the petitioner chose not

to take any appropriate step for redressal of his grievance and then addressed

a letter after a period of 5 years to the Inspector General of Police, IRB as to

how respondent No.5 could have been promoted under a wrong category. It

is only thereafter that the instant writ petition has been filed.

8. The respondents in their reply have admitted that it was on

account of an inadvertent mistake that Mahima Singh, respondent No.5, was

treated as a Scheduled Caste by taking his Banjara Caste which is under BC-

A, as Bhanjra caste.

9. Be that as it may, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner

has been a fence-sitter and has not approached for his grievance within a

reasonable time. The cause of action arose when promotion to the post took

4 of 5

place in the year 2008, and thereafter the petitioner in a half hearted attempt

tried to seek information under the RTI and thereafter, he sat back. He should

have approached the Court at the relevant time. Now at this belated stage, his

case cannot be considered as it would disturb the whole seniority. The law is

well settled that the seniority list as prepared should not be disturbed after a

long period of time as would be in the instant case. Reference may be made

to the judgment rendered in State of Uttaranchal Versus Sri Shiv Charan

Singh Bhandari 2013(12)SCC 179.

10. Finding no ground for interference, the writ petition stands

dismissed.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE 05.09.2022 sanjeev Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

5 of 5