SATINDERJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dtd. 17/6/2022 whereby his claim for the post of Constable under 2% quota has been rejected.

(2.) The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement dtd. 29/9/2011 applied for the post of Constable. The State Government issued policy dtd. 11/9/1996 whereby 2% reservation was granted to wards of Police Personnel. The said policy came to be challenged before this Court in CWP NO.13493 OF 2010. This Court vide interim order dtd. 15/9/2011 ordered that till further orders no appointment against aforesaid quota shall be made. The said petition came to be dismissed vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2015 meaning thereby 2% quota meant for Wards of Police Personnel was upheld. The respondent did not consider petitioner under 2% quota. The petitioner claims that he was eligible for 2% quota and respondent wrongly denied him said benefit.

(3.) Learned State counsel submits that in the Advertisement published in the newspaper, there was mistake to the extent that 2% quota was discussed, however, said mistake was corrected by way of corrigendum. In the corrigendum, it was clarified that no benefit will be given to Wards of Police Personnel. Not even single person was appointed against said quota. There was no intention of the Recruitment Board to grant 2% quota, thus, no candidate was selected. Any order in favour of petitioner would open pandora's box and create right in favour of a number of persons. It may also prejudice interest of those persons who were eligible but did not file petition.