GURMIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who possesses qualifications of B.A. and LL.B and who claims that he belongs to Backward Class submitted an application for recruitment to the post of Naib Tehsildar in response to the advertisement issued by the Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, Patiala (Published in the Tribune) dated December 21, 1987. In all five per cent posts were reserved for members of the Backward Classes. A written test was conducted on 22.10.1989. The candidates who were successful in the written test were called for interview on 13.3.1990. The petitioner was one amongst them. During the course of interview, the petitioner was directed to fill up a form containing the details of his particulars and bio-data. The petitioner gave out that he wishe to be considered against the general category. On the basis of performance of the candidates at the interview, the result of 20 candidates was declared on 9.5.1990. Of these, 10 belonged to the category of riot victims/terrorist victims; six belonged to Scheduled Castes; one from the category of sportsmen, one from the category of physically handicapped and two from the general category. The result of another batch of sixteen persons was declared in June, 1991. Of these, four persons were from the category of riot victims/terrorist victims and twelve were from the general category. No member belonging to the Backward Classes was declared selected or appointed.

(2.) The petitioner represented to the respondents and claimed consideration of his case for the appointment against five per cent reserved posts of Backward Classes but his representation was turned down by the Commissioner, Jullundur Division, vide communication (annexure P-4) dated 7.5.1990. Further representations made by the petitioner were considered by the Departmental Selection Committee and it was decided that the petitioner cannot be considered against the posts reserved for Backward Classes because he had shown himself to be belonging to general category at the time of the interview.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the decision of the respondents on the ground that once he had filed his application claiming himself to be a member of Backward Class he had a right to be considered against the posts reserved for Backward Classes and merely because at the time of interview, the petitioner gave out his choice to be considered in general category, his right of consideration against the reserved posts cannot be defeated. The petitioner's assertion is that he belongs to Lubana community which has been declared as Backward Class vide notification dated 6.10.1956, issued by the Government of Punjab and at the relevant time his family income was less than Rs. 3,600/- per annum.