Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 16 April, 2024
Bench: G.S.Sandhawalia, Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051273-DB
2024:PHHC:051273-DB 1 LPA No. 919 of 2024 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 919 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.04.2024
Satish Kumar .....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI, JUDGE
Present : Mr. Sunil K.Nehra, Advocate with
Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (oral)
The consideration in the present appeal is to the impugned order
dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.
5061 of 2024 whereby the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner was
dismissed on the ground that the benefit of 5 marks on account of being
member of Denotified Tribe or Nomadic Tribe could not be claimed if the
appellant was a schedule caste candidate. The relevant clause as such was
produced by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order under which the
benefit was being sought by the appellant-petitioner.
2. It is not disputed that the appellant-petitioner himself while
applying for the post of Turner Instructor Practical had claimed the benefit of
consideration against the reserved category of schedule caste against 10 posts
as per the advertisement dated 20.07.2019 (Annexure P-1).
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051273-DB
2024:PHHC:051273-DB 2 LPA No. 919 of 2024 (O&M)
3. The reasoning as such given by the learned Single Judge does not
suffer from any infirmity since the relevant clause reads as under:-
"If the applicant belongs to such a denotified tribe
(Vimukt Jatis and Tapriwas Jatis) or Nomadic Tribe of the
State of Haryana which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a
Backward Class."
4. It is thus apparent that the appellant could not seek benefit as such
on both counts once he applied for consideration against the reserved seats and
therefore, cannot seek the additional five marks as now claimed to enhance his
merit from 52.50 to 57.50 marks to come into the zone of consideration.
Therefore, no fault can be found as such to the view taken by the learned
Single Judge. The argument raised that for a different selection the same
benefit had been granted to certain set of candidates by the authorities would
also as such be of no help as Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been
held not to apply in negative aspect and if an illegality is committed once, it is
not to be perpetuated for all times to come.
5. The last submission which has been made by the appellant is
regarding his roll number to be figured in the general waiting list where the cut
of marks was 51 marks as per the result announced on 21.10.2022 (Annexure
P-4) on the ground he has secured 52.50 marks as against the candidate shown
in the general waiting list. We are of the considered view that since the waiting
list also has a shelf life of one year and the first representation was filed by the
appellant on 15.11.2022 (Annexure P-6) but the appellant approached this
Court in the year 2024 and therefore, having slept over his right, no case is
made out even to consider that aspect. The last application in this regard was
given by the appellant to the authorities on 18.01.2023. The selection process
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:051273-DB
2024:PHHC:051273-DB 3 LPA No. 919 of 2024 (O&M)
is not meant to remain open forever and in such circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the appellant cannot claim multiple considerations
of his claim in categories i.e. multiple i.e.Schedule Caste; Denotified Tribe and
general candidate. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has given
justifiable reasons for rejecting the claim of the appellant and we also do not
find any valid reason to interfere in the judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if
any, also stands disposed of.
(G.S.SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(VIKAS SURI)
JUDGE
16.04.2024
ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No
Whetherreportable √Yes/No
3 of 3
