Vinod Mattu vs State of Punjab and Another

Ajay Tewari, J.—By this petition the petitioner has challenged the appointment of Scheduled Castes (General) candidates numbering 4, against the posts meant for Balmikies/Majhabi Sikhs made in the year 1991. The petitioner is Majhabi Sikh belonging to the Schedule Caste category. In the advertisement as per the petitioner out of 12 posts of Scheduled Castes 6 were earmarked for Balmikies/Majhabi Sikhs and 6 were to be given to other Scheduled Castes. Further the petitioner has alleged that only 2 candidates of Balmikies/Majhabi Sikhs were selected and the remaining 4 seats from their quota were illegally diverted to the other Scheduled Castes. In reply it was mentioned that while making selection of candidates in the category of Balmikies & Majhabi Sikhs and other Scheduled Castes category the Government Instruction No. 1818-SWI-75/19451 dated 5-5-1978 read with Government Instruction No. 2/573/78-SWI/11310 dated 8-4-1980 were followed by the Commission, wherein it was laid down as under:--

...It is also made clear here that the above instructions are to be given effect if the balmikies and mazbi sikhs candidates have been included in the merits list after selection. If no candidate belonging to this category is selected or less number of candidates selected then the reserved vacancies or after the appointment of selected candidates, remaining vacancies are to be offered to other scheduled caste candidate, i.e. no post meant for balmiki and mazbi sikh is to be carried forward....

Further it was mentioned that the Selection Committee had earmarked a minimum of 40 marks for being considered suitable for selection and the petitioner having not received the said number of minimum marks was rightly ignored.

Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the provision of 40 marks is itself foreign to the advertisement. Further he has mentioned that out of these 40 marks also 40% have been ear-marked for interview which is highly excessive and in violation to the judgment reported as Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others,

Learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has argued that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as none of the affected candidates has been impleaded as party and now after 20 years it would not be possible for this Court to unseat a person who is not even before it. As per learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, there were no vacancies remaining at the time of the selection.

I am of the considered opinion that this argument cannot be brushed aside. Even if I would hold that the requirement of obtaining of 40 marks was illegal or the action of the respondents in earmarking 40% marks for interview is illegal, yet no relief can be granted to the petitioner unless the last candidate appointed is unseated, but that person is not before this Court. Twenty years have elapsed since this writ petition has been filed. Resultantly no relief is granted to the petitioner. Petition is dismissed.