Balbir Singh Vs State
of Haryana & Ors.
J U D G M E N T
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Being
aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18th July, 2003 delivered in CWP
No.14328 of 2000 by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the
appellant has filed this appeal.
3.
The
grievance of the appellant before the High Court was that he was wrongly not
appointed as an Art and Craft teacher. It was the case of the appellant that
certain candidates belonging to backward class `A' category had been given appointment
against the posts of general category and had it not been done so, the
appellant would have got the appointment.
4.
It
was also the case of the appellant that certain candidates, who had secured same
marks as secured by the appellant, were given appointment whereas he was not
appointed to the post in question.
5.
After
hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of record, the High Court rejected
the petition by the Judgment dated 18th July, 2003.
6.
In
the impugned Judgment it has been observed that some backward class `A'
category candidates had secured more marks than the cut off marks determined for
the general category candidates and, therefore, on the basis of their merit,
they had been given appointment and, therefore, it could not be said that the
respondent-Authorities had committed a mistake by giving appointment to backward
class `A' category candidates against the posts of general category, especially
when that was in accordance with the law.
7.
Factually,
the court found that no candidate of general class, who had secured less marks
than the appellant, was appointed as an Art and Craft teacher and, therefore,
the petition had been rejected.
8.
The
learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a similar grievance before
this Court. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted that there was one vacancy as
Shri Kartar Singh, who had been appointed as an Art and Craft teacher had submitted
his resignation and, therefore, on the vacancy which had arisen on account of resignation
of Shri Kartar Singh, the appellant should have been appointed as an Art and
Craft teacher.
9.
On
behalf of the respondent-Authorities the learned counsel submitted that life of
the waiting list was only one year and the waiting list lapsed on 27th April, 2000
and, therefore, though the appellant's name was in the waiting list, he could
not have been appointed after 27th April, 2000.
10.
We
heard learned counsel and also perused the record which had been called for.
11.
Upon
hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the record including the select list
and the waiting list, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
12.
It
is true that some persons belonging to the backward class `A' category had been
appointed along with the candidates of general category because they had
secured more marks than the cut off marks determined for selecting the candidates
of the general category and, therefore, on their merit they were given
appointment. In our opinion, the said action of the appointing authority was in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court and, therefore, we do not find
any illegality committed by the respondents in doing so, especially when those candidates
belonging to the backward class `A' category had secured even more marks than
what the appellant had secured.
13.
Upon
perusal of the record, we find that the appellant had secured 62 marks whereas the
last candidate of the general category who was selected had secured 71 marks. In
view of the said fact, it can not be said that any candidate who had secured
lesser marks than the appellant had been given appointment as an Art and Craft
teacher so far as the general category is concerned.
14.
The
waiting list lapsed on 27th April, 2000 and, therefore, the said list could not
have been operated after 27th April, 2000. In the circumstances, if any vacancy
had arisen after 27th April, 2000, the waiting list could not have been operated
for filling up of such a vacancy. In the circumstances, the submission with regard
to giving appointment to the appellant against vacancy arising on account of resignation
of Shri Kartar Singh cannot be taken into account. It is also pertinent to note
that the submission with regard to resignation of Shri Kartar Singh had not
been supported by any material on record and the said submission was made orally
by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at the time of hearing. However,
the learned counsel appearing for the Authorities submitted that Shri Kartar
Singh had resigned after 27th April, 2000.
15.
For
the aforestated reasons and for the reasons recorded by the High Court, we do
not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant and, in our opinion, the impugned order passed by the High Court
is just and proper and, therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to
costs.
.................................................J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
.................................................J.
(ANIL R. DAVE)
New
Delhi
March
31, 2011.
Back
