Imninder Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The Department of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, State of Punjab issued an advertisement (Annexure P-4) for recruitment to the post of Junior Editors (Group-C) against the reserved categories. The total number of posts advertised were 16. In the advertisement itself issued in the year 2011, 4 posts were reserved for SC (B&M), 10 for ESM, out of which further bifurcation was made i.e. 6 for General, 1 for SC (B&M), 1 for SC (O) and 1 for BC. Furthermore, two posts were reserved for sportsman i.e. 1 for General and 1 for SC (B&M). The last date for submission of applications was stipulated as 31.03.2011. The petitioner who states to be belonging to the SC (O) category submits that she had applied for the post in question i.e. Junior Editor (Group-C) and she had been issued admit certificate and even been permitted to appear in the examination. Petitioner asserts that she had secured 40.77 marks and has been denied appointment whereas, respondent Nos. 4 & 5 who had obtained lower marks i.e. 38.93 and 40.60 respectively have been granted appointment. As such, the prayer made in the present writ petition is for quashing of selection process ordered by the respondent/authorities for purposes of appointment to the post of Junior Editors (Group-C) and further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to grant the petitioner the appointment to the post of Junior Editor (Group-C). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised a two fold submission. In the first instance, it has been argued that there were 10 posts reserved for ESM category which have been further sub classified into General, SC (B&M), SC (O) and BC. Counsel would place reliance upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as 2005 (1) SCT 750 to contend that such sub classification within the ESM category amounts to micro classification and the same is violative of the provisions of the Constitution of India being not permissible. The second submission of the learned counsel is that candidates lower in order of merit have been granted appointment while ignoring the claim of the petitioner who has secured higher marks.

I am unable to agree with the submissions raised by the learned counsel. It is not in dispute and it is infact the pleaded case of the petitioner herself that she belongs to the SC (O) category. The advertisement at Annexure P-4 itself would reveal that there was no reservation at all provided for SC (O) category. The reservation within the total 16 posts of Junior Editor (Group-C) was in favour of SC (B&M) to the extent of 4 posts. The grievance if any as regards no reservation having been provided for SC (O) category to which the petitioner belongs should have been agitated if at all at the very thresh hold. The petitioner knew from the very beginning that there was no reservation provided in the advertisement itself in relation to the category to which she belongs. The submission made by the learned counsel regarding the purported micro classification within the ESM category is of no relevance as the petitioner does not belong to the ESM category herself.

That apart, even though, respondents No. 4 & 5 have been impleaded in the array of the respondents and it has been stated that they have obtained lower marks than the petitioner but the pleadings in the writ petition are completely bereft as to which category such respondents No. 4 & 5 belong. It has neither been pleaded nor has any submission raised at the time of arguments that any candidate belonging to the SC (O) category has been appointed, who possesses lower marks than the petitioner. Apparently, such a submission would not be available to the petitioner as no reservation for SC (O) category had been provided for in the advertisement at Annexure P-4. I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.