Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuljeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 19 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054895
CWP-136-2017 (O&M)
and other connected cases 1 2023:PHHC:054895
107-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1.CWP-136-2017 (O&M)
Kuljeet Kaur
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
2.CWP-1872-2017 (O&M)
Gurmail Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
3.CWP-17486-2018 (O&M)
Vishal and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
4.CWP-7434-2017 (O&M)
Gaurav
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
5.CWP-4078-2017 (O&M)
Inderjit Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054895
CWP-136-2017 (O&M)
and other connected cases 2 2023:PHHC:054895
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents
6.CWP-2772-2018 (O&M)
Satdev and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
..Respondents
Date of decision: 19.04.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:- Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners
in CWP-136-2017 and CWP-7434-2017
Mr. Gurpreet Singh Dhillon, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-1872-2017, CWP17486-2018
and CWP-2772-2018
Mr. Arunjeet Singh Kakkar, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-4078-2017
Mr. D.K.Singal, Addl. AG, Punjab
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)
1. By this order, six Civil Writ Petitions i.e CWP-136-2017,
7434-2017, 1872-2017, 4078-2017, 7434-2017, 17486-2018 and 2772-
2018 shall stand disposed of.
2. Learned counsel representing the parties are ad idem that
these writ petitions can conveniently be disposed of by a common order
as the issue which arises for consideration is same in all the writ
petitions.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054895
CWP-136-2017 (O&M)
and other connected cases 3 2023:PHHC:054895
3. Before discussing the contentions of the learned counsel
representing the parties, it would be appropriate to take note of the
relevant facts, in brief.
4. On 10.09.2016 a public notice was issued inviting the
applications to fill up 1227 vacant posts of Revenue Patwari and 857
posts of Canal Patwari. A common written examination was conducted.
After its result was declared, the process of scrutiny of documents was
initiated. At that point in time, the candidates were given the option to
choose between the positions of Revenue Patwari and Canal Patwari in
the first stage. The post of Revenue Patwari is a District cadre post.
The candidates were also given the option to choose a District. In
essence, the grievance of the petitioners is that they belong to the
reserved category and due to the choice made by meritorious reserve
category candidates, the positions allocated for the reserved category
have been exhausted, even though the meritorious reserved category
candidates could have been accommodated under the General Category.
5. Learned counsel representing the parties while relying upon
the judgment passed in R.K.Sabherwal vs. State of Punjab (1995) 2
SCC 745 submits that the meritorious reserved category candidates may
take up positions designated for the General category only if they obtain
higher marks than the last candidate in the general category. However, it
appears that this process was not followed which resulted in denial of the
appointment to reserved category candidates.
6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel while relying
upon the Five Judge Bench judgment in Union of India vs. Ramesh
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054895
CWP-136-2017 (O&M)
and other connected cases 4 2023:PHHC:054895
Ram and others (2010) 7 SCC 234 submits that the meritorious
candidates from reserved category should not be denied of the
opportunity to select their department and District.
7. Learned counsel representing the petitioners have tried to
distinguish the judgment in Ramesh Ram's case (supra) while
contending that the aforesaid case relates to the selection to three All
India Services namely Indian Administrative Service, Indian Forest
Service and Indian Police Service and 15 Group A Service and 3 Group
B Officers in the various Government Departments whereas in the
present case, the appointment is to the post of Patwari, which is common
in both the Departments.
8. This Court has considered the submissions and analyzed the
arguments of the learned counsel representing the parties. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the meritorious reserved category
candidates cannot be denied of the opportunity to make a choice not only
with respect to the Department but also the District. These candidadtes
are high performing individuals. Hence, they cannot be deprived of an
opportunity to make it to better service only to accommodate more
reserved category candidates. In this case also, the recruitment is for 2
different services though the word 'Patwari' is common, however, in one
case the selection is to the post of a Revenue Patwari in the Revenue
Department whereas in the second case, the appointment is to the post of
a Canal Patwari in the Irrigation Department. Their services are
governed by a separate set of service rules. In these circumstances, the
distinction sought to be made by the learned counsel representing the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054895
CWP-136-2017 (O&M)
and other connected cases 5 2023:PHHC:054895
petitioners from the principle laid down in Ramesh Ram's case (supra)
does not exist. Moreover, the selected candidates have not been
impleaded as a party though their names were disclosed by the State
alongwith the written statement. Additionally an identical issue has been
considered by this Court in Karan Kamboj and another vs. State of
Punjab and another (CWP-3013-2023 decided on 28.03.2023).
Hence, finding no merit, the writ petitions are dismissed.
9. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
19.04.2023 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:054895
5 of 5
