Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 21 October, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137462
CWP No. 28410 of 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(132) CWP No. 28410 of 2024
Date of Decision : 21.10.2024
Dr. Sukhwinder Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate for the respondent No. 3-University.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
petitioner competed for the post of Assistant Professor as per the
Advertisement dated 19.10.2021 (Annexure P-2).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view
the fact that there were large number of posts to be filled in the General
Category, the petitioner applied in the General Category. Learned counsel
submits that thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation to consider the
petitioner in the Reserved Category i.e. for the change of his Category from
General Category to Reserved Category, which has not been accepted, which
is causing prejudice to the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents be
directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Assistant
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137462
Professor in Punjabi in the Reserved Category of Backward Class instead of
General Category.
3. Notice of motion.
4. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Satnam Preet Singh, Deputy
Advocate General, Punjab, who is present in Court, accepts notice on behalf
of the respondent-State and Mr. H.S. Batth, Advocate appears on behalf of
respondent No. 3-University.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that as per the
Advertisement, once a Category has been applied for and the petitioner has
competed under the General Category, after the declaration of the result, the
petitioner cannot claim the change of his Category from General to
Backward.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
7. In the present petition, the claim of the petitioner is that he
should be allowed to change his Category from General Category to
Backward Class. The question of law whether, the candidate can be allowed
the said benefit has already been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Civil Appeal No. 198 of 2005, titled as J.& K. Public Service
Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad & Others, decided on 07.01.2005. The
relevant paragraph No. 6 of the said judgment is as under :-
"6. We have considered the rival contentions advanced by
both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be
accepted as he has not applied for the selection as a candidate
entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate
along with his application. The fact that he has not availed the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:137462
benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat
him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation. He passed the
preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the
subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail the
the reservation on the ground that he was successful in getting
the required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and
status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could
only be treated alike and once a candidate has chosen to opt for
the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the
status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct
in holding that as a candidate he had also had the qualification
and the production of the certificate at later stage would make
him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the
judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal."
8. Keeping in view the reproduction, it is clear that once a
candidate has applied in a particular category and competed, later on the said
Category cannot be allowed to change. The petitioner has not been able to
rebut the said judgment to be applicable upon the case of the petitioner and
that it is contrary to the relief being sought by the petitioner in the present
petition.
9. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for the grant
of any relief to the petitioner as being claimed in the present petition.
10. Dismissed.
October 21, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
3 of 3
