VED PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue raised in the instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is whether in a single cadre post there could be reservation in favour of a member of Scheduled Caste. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 03.01.2012 has set aside order dated 21.10.2010 (P-8). It was in pursuance of the aforesaid order that writ petitioner-respondent No.4-Kuldip Singh was reverted from the post of Deputy Superintendent and the appellant was given promotion. According to learned Single Judge, respondent-State had passed the order on the assumption that the cadre of Deputy Superintendent was comprised of two posts and the roster point was to operate on account of the plurality of the post in the cadre.

(2.) In the affidavit filed by the Officer of the respondent-State, the newly created post of Deputy Superintendent was under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (Sharing Basis) on Micro Irrigation 2006-07 Plan and it was not a regular cadre post so as to conclude that there was plurality of posts in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent in the office of Directorate Horticulture, Haryana. On the basis of the affidavit filed, the learned Single Judge concluded that the respondent-State had proceeded on a wrong assumption by including the post under the Scheme in the cadre post and proceeded to treat the cadre having been comprised of plurality of cadre post of Deputy Superintendent.

(3.) The learned Single Judge accepted the contention raised by writ petitioner-respondent No.4- Kuldip Singh that even instructions dated 03.06.2002 (P-1) issued by the respondent-State has categorically laid down that there could be no reservation for a single cadre post and the roster point was to operate only in a case where there was plurality of the post in the cadre. The aforesaid instructions were issued on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.R. Murthy v. State of Karnataka, 1999 8 SCC 176.