Singh Vs. State of Haryana & ANR  INSC 495 (2 May 1997)
VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
JU D G
ME N T MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.
appellant is a Sainideclared us of the other backward classin the State
ofHaryanaa notification dated 5.2.1991. This notification inter, providesthat
persons belonging to the Saini caste and residing in the state of Haryanawill
be considered asforming a part otherback classesin the state ofHaryana.
advertisement bearing No.1 of 1995and No.7 of 1995 were issued by the
Subordinate Service Selection Board, haryanafor recruitment of candidates to
various posts.One of the posts so advertised was that of lectures in political
science. under Advertisement No.1 of 1995 15 posts of lecturers in political science
were advertised of which one was reserved for backward classes. Under
Advertisement No.7 of 1995, inter alia, 48 posts of lectures in political
sciencewere advertisedout of which 10 were reserved for backward classes.Out of
these 10, six were reserved for backward classes inthe "A"category
and four were reserved for backwardclassesin the 'B' category.
the Advertisement 1 of 1995 andbefore Advertisement 7 of 1995, instructionwere
issued bythe Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to all heads of departments
and other authorities stating that thereservation for backward classeswas
enhancedfrom 10% to 27% andthat amongst backward classes, it was decided
tocreatetwo blocks, Block 'A' and 11% would be reserved for backward classes in
Block 'B' and 16% of seats would be reserved for backward classesin Block `A'
and 11% would be reserved for backward classesin Block 'B' There was also a
reservation of 10% for ex-servicemen and 3% for physicallyhandicapped.
forming part of Block'A' andcastes formingpart of Block 'B' were
enumerated.Saini caste wasin Block 'B' that is why the advertisement7 of 1995
divided the ten seats for backward classesinto six seatsfor backward class
candidates in Block 'A'and 4 seats for backward class candidates in Block 'B'
Afterthese instructions, therefore, theappellant formed a partof Block 'B'
amongst backward classes.
appellant applied for the post oflecturer in political science. Both
theadvertisementswere clubbed together in selectionof candidates Advertisement
No.7 of 1995 stated that the post which were advertised under Advertisement
No.7 of 1995 were in additionto the posts advertised under Advertisement 1
of1995 need not apply again. Their previous application would be
considered.Thus application under both these advertisementwere clubbed
together, candidates were interviewed and selected taking into account
theapplicationsunder both these advertisements.The appellant was not of the
candidates selected in the backward class category. Inthe order of merit, he was
at serial No. 5 in Block 'B'of selected backward classcandidates. Hewas gives
an appointment letter dated 4.4.196. Pursuant to his appointment, the appellant
jointed his post on 18.4.1996.However, he received a registered letter dated
11.6.1996 statingthat there had beenan error in issuinghim an appointment
letter and theappointment letter was being withdrawn.
to the respondent there wasan error in granting an appointmentto the appellant
because theone post of backward class candidatewhich was advertised by
Advertisement 1 of 1995 was erroneously considered bythem as forming a part of
Block 'B' while it should have formed a partof Block 'A' Hence the appointment
given to the appellant was withdrawn. The appellant has challengedthis finding.
He hasalso urged that prior to his being selected and appointed he washolding
the post oflecturer in political science in Rajdevi Multi-PurposeCollege for
WomenBehrian. He resigned from his post in order to accept the appointment
offered to him on his selection pursuant to the Advertisements 1 and 7 of 1995.
Now he is deprived of both these posts. He has alsostatedthat he is a
physically handicapped personand a a sympathetic view should be taken ofhis
Advertisement 1 of 1995. 15 posts oflecturers in political science were
advertised while under Advertisement 7 of 1995 48 posts of lecturersin
political sciencewere advertised, making of total of 63 posts.
applicants of all these 63 posts were considered for selection after the coming
into force ofinstructions dated 20.7.1995, we will have to take into account
the roster prepared under these instructions for reservation of posts forBlock
'A' and Block'B' backward class candidates. As per the roster which forms a
part of instructions issued on20th of July,1995 the following roster points are
preserved for candidates belonging to Block 'B'.
"B' "9-18-27 (ESM) -63-46-54(ESM)-63- 72-81 (ESM) -89(PH)-98"
Sixty three postsof lecturers in political science were being filled fifteen
under Advertisement 1 of 1995 and forty eighty under advertisement 7 of 1995.
We will ignore roster points 27 and 54 whichare for ex-servicemen.Thus upto and
including serial No. 63, five roster point are reserved is atSerial No.5 inthe
merit list of backward class candidates belonging to Block 'B' Theappellant is
at Serial No.5 in the merit list of backward class candidates belonging to
Block'B' Therefore, the letter of appointment was rightly issued tothe
appellant. The respondents were required to consider the total of 63 posts
advertised andgive roster points in accordance with the roster which forms a
part of the instructions of 20th July, 1995.
If this is how the appointments are examined, the appellant has been property
selected and appointed. The termination ofthe appellant's service, therefore is
appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to continue the
appellant in service in service. the appellantshall be accommodatedin the first
available vacancy fora backward class candidate belonging to 'B'category at
roster point 63.There will, however, be no order as costs inthe circumstances
of the case.