IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RESERVED ON: 15.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON:04.11.2025 ANIL KUMAR YADAV AND OTHERS .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA ETC.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Rohan Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG Haryana Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Dhull, Advocate for respondents No.3 to 12 SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection and appointments made vide order dated 02.04.1997 (Annexure P-8) of private respondents No.3 to 12 to the post of Agriculture Development Officers (ADOs) and to further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking directions to the respondents to make appointments to the post of Agriculture Development Officers in accordance with the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Jaskaran Singh's case and to prepare a common merit list of all the reserved and unreserved candidates and to select the backward classes category candidates as per their own merit, who are higher in merit than General Category candidates and to fill up the posts reserved for Backward Class Category from amongst the remaining Backward Class Category candidates as per their merit.

2. Facts:-

Before proceeding further the factual aspects evolving in the instant petition can be culled to record that on 09.02.1996, 134 posts of Agriculture Development Officers (ADOs) out of which 18 posts were kept reserved for SC-A category and 17 for SC-B category whereas 08 posts were earmarked for BC -A and 6 for BC-B category.

Apart from above that one post was meant for ESM (A, B, C) and one for ESM BC-B category. Further 3 posts were meant for ESM (general category)

and accordingly 80 posts were left out for the general category.

The petitioners belong to BC category, who applied for the said post for which interview was held from 24.12.1996 till 03.01.1997. The petitioners were also called for the said interview as has been demonstrated vide a tabulated chart at Annexure P-3 showing roll numbers and date of interview for each of the petitioners belonging to BC-A and BC-B.

After conclusion of the interview, result was declared vide publication in the newspaper on 07.03.1997 (Annexure P-4), and the candidate who secured

71 to 83 marks in the general category were selected for the said post. In the BC-A category, the candidates securing 81, 80, 79, 76, 72, 70 and 68 marks were shown to be selected, whereas in the BC-B category, the candidates having obtained 80, 79, 78, 78, 76 and 75 marks got selected.

The petitioner No.1 was placed in the waiting list at Sr. No.4 of BC-B category having secured 70 marks.

Subsequently a corrigendum was issued vide publication in the Tribune dated 08.03.1997 (Annexure P-4/A), with certain changes in the original result to the effect that petitioner No.10, who was earlier shown to be selected in BC-B category was placed in the waiting list and in his place candidate belonging to BC category, who was originally selected in SC category was added in the list of selected candidates of BC-B category.

It is the above-said selection process after declaration of the result has been assailed in the instant petition particularly in the changes made through a corrigendum dated 08.03.1997 (Annexure P-4/A) alleging the same to be illegal and against the mandate of Division Bench of this Court passed in Jaskaran Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1995 (1) SLR 641.

3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioners Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Advocate for the petitioners would argue that a candidate, who belonging to the reserved category if secures more marks than the general category candidates he should be considered in the general category for selection and not against the reserved category. It is stated that th