Punjab-Haryana High Court
Atma Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others on 16 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005926
{2024:PHHC:005926}
222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-655-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:16.01.2024
ATMA SINGH ........Petitioner
V/s.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shivani Sharma, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has claimed
consideration for appointment on the post of Warder, Jail Department in the
BC category submitting that in the selection process, he obtained 27 marks
and respondent No.5, who obtained 26.63 marks i.e. less than the petitioner,
and belonged to the BC category, has been considered and appointed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection for
the post of Warder was originally advertised on 12.10.2011, but the said
selection process was cancelled by the State Government vide its decision
dated 05.06.2014. However, the High Court intervened in CWP-15409-2014
and revived the selection process vide order dated 17.12.2016, whereafter the
selection was conducted for the post. It is submitted that in the meantime, the
petitioner's caste namely "Saini" was included in the Backward Class (BC)
vide notification dated 12.09.2016. The petitioner, therefore, has participated
in the selection process in the BC category and the denial of considering his
candidature under the BC category was wholly unjustified.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005926
{2024:PHHC:005926}
CWP-655-2018(O&M)
3. He further submits that his certificate of BC category was
produced by him during the interview and the same ought to have been taken
into consideration in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services
Selection Board and Another; 2016 AIR (SC) 1098.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar view
has also been taken by this Court in CWP-13713-2014 titled as Dheeraj
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another decided on 20.01.2017.
5. I have considered the submissions and find that the respondents
have denied the petitioner's consideration in the BC category on the ground
that the "Saini" community was included in the BC category vide notification
dated 12.09.2016 whereas, the selections have been made under the
advertisement dated 12.10.2011.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner to the
extent that the selections remaining in abeyance and having actually
conducted after his caste was notified as a BC category caste, cannot be
accepted as the Court's order dated 17.12.2016 passed in CWP-15409-2014,
reviving the selection process of 2011 did not in any manner changed the
conditions of the advertisement. The last date for submitting the application
form was neither extended nor were any new candidate allowed to participate
in the said selection process. The petitioner too admittedly applied under the
general category under the advertisement dated 12.10.2011. He, therefore,
has to be treated as general category candidate as was existing on the day
when the advertisement was issued. The posts were also bifurcated according
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005926
{2024:PHHC:005926}
CWP-655-2018(O&M)
to the position as it stood in the year 2011. Thus, merely because the posts
could not be filled for reasons as above, it cannot be said that the candidates
belonging to "Saini" community would have to be treated as BC category.
7. This Court further finds that on the date when the advertisement
was issue i.e. in the year 2011, the candidates who applied from the "Saini"
community would have applied in general category. Their selection process
was revived by the order of this Court on 17.12.2016. Thus, their applications
continued to be under general category. Since the "Saini" community has
been included in the BC category only on 12.09.2016, and no new person has
been allowed to participate in the selection process, it cannot be said that
selection process which concluded after 2016 would include the candidates
from "Saini" community as belonging to BC category. They also did not
possess any such certificate on the last date of submission of the application
form.
8. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for treating them
as BC reserved category and give them appointment in the said category is
not sustainable in law.
9. So far as the judgments cited hereinabove by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board and Another; 2016 AIR (SC) 1098 (Supra) and
Dheeraj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Another (Supra) rendered by this
Court are concerned, the same are relating to the candidates who were
belonging to a BC category at the time of advertisement and the only issue
was the submission of the certificate on the last date for submitting of the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005926
{2024:PHHC:005926}
CWP-655-2018(O&M)
application form and the High Court as well as the Supreme Court has held
that a person can submit the BC certificate even subsequently as the same
will hold field for the candidate who was originally in the BC category.
10. The Writ Petition accordingly fails and the same is dismissed.
11. All pending applications in this Writ Petition stand disposed of
accordingly.
January 16, 2024 [ SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005926
4 of 4
