Suresh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

Krishna Murari, CJ

This intra-Court appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.08.2018 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

The appellant filed the writ petition seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 16.12.2008 rejecting his claim for consideration for appointment under reserved quota of Freedom Fighters. A writ of mandamus was also claimed to command the respondents to appoint him on the post of Lecturer (Political Science) by extending him the benefit of reservation for Wards of Freedom F ighters.

Facts are that the Haryana Staff Selection Commission advertised 99 posts inviting applications for appointment on the posts of Lecturer in Political Science (School Cadre), out of which 14 posts were reserved for Ex-servicemen Category (ESM General=4, ESM SC-A=2, ESM SC-B=2, ESM BC-A=3, ESM BC-B=3).

Admittedly, the appellant-petitioner belongs to General Category and had applied as dependant of freedom fighter. He obtained 62 marks out of 200 as against 78 marks obtained by the last short-listed candidate for interview in the ESM (General) Category, as such, he did not qualify the written test. Insofar as 4 posts meant for ESM (General) Category are concerned, 4 suitable candidates were recommended and, thus, there was no vacancy available in the said category. Insofar as the other categories of Ex-servicemen are concerned, 1 post in ESM (SC-A) Category, 2 posts in ESM (SC-B) and 3 posts in ESM (BC-A) remained vacant for want of suitable candidates.

In effect, the claim of the appellant-petitioner is that the available vacancies under the ESM (SC -A), ESM (SC-B) and ESM (BC-A) Categories be diverted to the category under which he applied and the same be made available to him.

The Government instructions clearly provide that only in case suitable candidate in Ex-serviceman (General) Category is not available then the vacancy could be diverted to consider the case of an eligible ward of freedom fighter. However, the unfulfilled vacancies fell in ESM (SC-A), ESM (SC-B) and ESM (BC-A) Categories under the vertical reservation and the appellant-petitioner applied under the category of Wards of Freedom Fighters which falls under horizontal reservation, as such, he cannot make any claim against the unfulfilled posts falling under the vertical reservation.

In view of the above facts and discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the learned single Judge in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the vacancy falling under vertical reservation cannot be diverted to consider the case of the petitioner, who had applied under the category falling under horizontal reservation.

There is another aspect of the matter, which is to be taken note of. The posts were advertised on 14.11.1999 and the process for filling up the same had been concluded long ago, whereas, the controversy has been raised by the petitioner after a considerable and inordinate delay by filing writ petition in the year 2009. Thus, the learned single Judge non-suited the appellant-petitioner on the ground of delay and laches as well. Again we do not find any illegality in the view taken by the learned single Judge.

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands dismissed.