SATBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a Saini declared as one of the other backward classes in the State of Haryana under a notification dated 5-2-1991. This notification, inter alia, provides that persons belonging to the Saini caste and residing in the State of Haryana will be considered as forming a part of other backward classes in the State of Haryana.

(2.) Two advertisements bearing No. 1 of 1995 and No. 7 of 1995 were issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana for recruitment of candidates to various posts. One of the posts so advertised was that of Lecturers in political science. Under Advertisement No. 1 of 1995, 15 posts of Lecturers in political science were advertised of which one was reserved for backward classes. Under Advertisement No. 7 of 1995, inter alia, 48 posts of Lecturers in political science were advertised out of which 10 were reserved for backward classes. Out of these 10, six were reserved for backward classes in the A category and four were reserved for backward classes in the B category. After the Advertisement 1 of 1995 and before Advertisement 7 of 1995, instructions were issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to all heads of departments and other authorities stating that the reservation for backward classes was enhanced from 10% to 27% and that amongst backward classes, it was decided to create two blocks, Block A and Block B, and 16% of seats would be reserved for backward classes in Block A and 11% would be reserved for backward classes in Block B. There was also a reservation of 10% for ex-servicemen and 3% for physically handicapped. Castes forming part of Block A and castes forming part of Block B were enumerated. Saini caste was in Block B that is why the advertisement 7 of 1995 divided the ten seats for backward classes into six seats for backward class candidates in Block A and 4 seats for backward class candidates in Block B. After these instructions, therefore, the appellant formed a part of Block B amongst backward classes.

(3.) The appellant applied for the post of Lecturer in political science. Both the advertisements were clubbed together in selection of candidates. Advertisement No. 7 of 1995 stated that the posts which were advertised under Advertisement No. 7 of 1995 were in addition to the posts advertised under Advertisement 1 of 1995 and those candidates who applied in response to Advertisement 1 of 1995 need not apply again. Their previous applications would be considered. Thus applications under both these advertisements were clubbed together, candidates were interviewed and selected taking into account the applications under both these advertisements. The appellant was one of the candidates selected in the backward class category. In the order of merit, he was at Serial No. 5 in Block B of selected backward class candidates. He was given an appointment letter dated 4-4-1996. Pursuant to his appointment, the appellant joined his post on 18-4-1996. However, he received a registered letter dated 11-6-1996 stating that there had been an error in issuing him an appointment letter and the appointment letter was being withdrawn. According to the respondents there was an error in granting an appointment to the appellant because the one post of backward class candidate which was advertised by Advertisement 1 of 1995 was erroneously considered by them as forming a part of Block B while it should have formed a part of Block A. Hence the appointment given to the appellant was withdrawn. The appellant has challenged this finding. He has also urged that prior to his being selected and appointed he was holding the post of Lecturer in political science in Rajdevi Multi-Purpose College for Women, Behrian. He resigned from his post in order to accept the appointment offered to him on his selection pursuant to the Advertisements 1 and 7 of 1995. Now he is deprived of both these posts. He has also stated that he is a physically handicapped person and a sympathetic view should be taken of his situation.