2014 Supreme(HP) 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Piar Singh Rana, J.
Suresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of H.P. - Respondent
CWP No. 7669 of 2012
Decided On : 24-12-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :J.L. Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:M.L. Chauhan, Additional Advocate General, and J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General, Advocate
The reservation provision does not allow encroachment of SC (IRDP) candidate upon the post of SC (UR) candidate, emphasizing the legal obligation to protect the weaker class of society.
Headnote:
Reservation - Public Post of Physical Education Teacher - SC (IRDP) - [H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board Hamirpur - Post Code-295] - The court rejected the petitioner's claim for appointment in the post of Physical Education teacher reserved for SC (UR) category, citing that the reservation provision does not allow encroachment of SC (IRDP) candidate upon the post of SC (UR) candidate. The court emphasized the legal obligation to protect the weaker class of society and held that such encroachment is not permissible under any statutory rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment as a Physical Education Teacher reserved for SC (UR) category, claiming that a reserved candidate securing more marks than the general category candidate should be placed in the general category. The respondents contended that the petitioner cannot be appointed in the reserved category of SC (UR) as he applied for the post under SC (IRDP) category.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the petitioner's claim, stating that the reservation provision does not allow encroachment of SC (IRDP) candidate upon the post of SC (UR) candidate, emphasizing the legal obligation to protect the weaker class of society.
Issues: Whether the petitioner, belonging to the reserved SC (IRDP) category, is legally entitled for the appointment in the public post of Physical Education Teacher reserved for SC (UR) and whether encroachment in reserved public post SC(UR) inter-se Schedule Caste category SC (IRDP) is permissible as alleged?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the reservation provision does not allow encroachment of SC (IRDP) candidate upon the post of SC (UR) candidate, emphasizing the legal obligation to protect the weaker class of society.
Final Decision: The civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed, and the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Piar Singh Rana, J.
Present civil writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pleaded therein that in the year 1994 petitioner passed his matriculation examination from H.P. Board of School Education Dharamshala (H.P.) and in the year 1996 petitioner passed his 10+2 from H.P. Board of School Education Dharamshala (H.P.). It is pleaded that in the year 2001 petitioner has passed Bachelor of Arts from H.P. University and in the year 2003 petitioner has passed one year degree course in Bachelor of Physical Education diploma from Amaravati University. It is further pleaded that on dated 3.6.2011 respondent No. 1 State of H.P. through its Secretary (Education) to the Government of H.P. directed H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board Hamirpur (H.P.) to sponsor the candidates after conducting their examination for the post of Physical Education Teacher. It is pleaded that thereafter respondent No. 3 H.P. Subordinate Service Selection Board Hamirpur through its Secretary issued the advertisement for the post of Physical Education Teacher on dated 3.6.2011 and further pleaded that thereafter petitioner applied within time for the post of Physical Education Teacher under SC-IRDP category for which two posts were reserved. It is pleaded that roll number was issued to the petitioner and petitioner appeared in the written test and petitioner successfully qualified the written test. It is pleaded that thereafter on dated 18.05.2012 the petitioner was issued the interview letter after qualifying the written test for the post of Physical Education teacher and interview was conducted on dated 19.6.2012. It is pleaded that thereafter petitioner appeared in the interview which held on dated 19.6.2012 and final result was declared on dated 6.7.2012. It is pleaded that name of petitioner was not recommended for the post of Physical Education Teacher against SC-IRDP category. It is also pleaded that petitioner received the information under RTI. It is pleaded that as per law laid down by the Supreme Court if a reserved candidate secures more marks than the general category candidate in the merit list then reserved candidate should be placed in general category instead of reserved category. It is pleaded that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 did not adopt the procedure laid down by Apex Court of India in case reported in Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2010) 5 SCC 136. It is pleaded that recommendation submitted by respondent No. 3 dated 6.7.2012 be quashed and further pleaded that appointment letter issued to respondent Nos. 4 to 6 be also quashed and it is also pleaded that respondent No. 3 be directed to recommend the name of petitioner for the post of Physical Education Teacher and thereafter respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to offer the appointment to the petitioner as Physical Education teacher w.e.f. 6.7.2012. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought.
2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded therein that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 offered the appointment to the selected candidates whose names were selected by H.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board for appointment. It is further pleaded that process of selection for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher is concerned with respondent No. 3 and replying respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have no role in the selection process. It is pleaded that petitioner has wrongly impleaded the respondent No. 1 and 2 as co-respondents and prayer for dismissal of writ petition sought.
3. Per contra separate reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 pleaded therein that present petition is not maintainable. It is pleaded that respondent No. 3 advertised 50 posts of Physical Education Teacher vide advertisement No. 19/2011 dated 3.6.2011 which were meant for different categories. It is pleaded that petitioner applied under SC-IRDP category and appeared in the written screening test and qualified the same and thereafter he was called