ATTAR SINGH DHOOR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C.W.P. No. 15302 of 2005 and C. W. P. No. 5815 of 2006 as challenge in these petitions is to the same instructions issued by Govt, of Punjab.

(2.) Government of Punjab issued the instructions dated 5.5.1975 (Annexure-P1) providing that 50% vacancies of quota reserved for the members of scheduled castes should be offered to Balmikis and Mazbi Sikhs if available as a first preference from amongst scheduled caste candidates. The petitioners in these two writ petitions claim that they belong to castes of Ramdasia and Ad Dharmi etc. and being scheduled case were aggrieved against the reservation of 50% of the vacancies for two castes (i.e. Balmiki and Mazbi Sikhs) only from amongst the scheduled case contained in the impugned instructions dated 5.5.1975. It is claimed that the reservation in the instructions (Annexure-P1) has been made without conducting any survey and was done simply on account of political consideration and pressure. It is further stated that there is no reason mentioned in making this reservation for two castes from amongst the scheduled caste. It has also been disclosed in the writ petitions that the said instructions were challenged before this Court in the year 1979 by one Kanwaljit Singh Sidhu and the case was referred to Full Bench after noticing a conflict between two judgments of Division Bench of this Court. The instructions under challenge in the present writ petitions were upheld by the Full Bench as constitutionally valid and this decision is reported as Kanwaljit Singh Sidhu P.C.S. (Executive) and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, 1980 ((3) SLR 34 . Decision in the case of Sadhu Singh in CWP No. 2425 of 1976 dated 6.7.1976 holding that providing of quota for reservation within reservation was not permissible, was overruled. These instructions, as such, continued to operate ever since 1975. The challenge in the writ petitions now is on the ground that the instructions are in direct derogation to law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 162 : (2005 ((1) S.C.C. 394), . It is claimed that by operation of the instructions, immense injustice has been done to the likes of the petitioners, who are from 35 castes as mentioned in the Presidential List (Annexure P2). It is also brought out that the respondent- State never reviewed its policy and continued to give preferential treatment reserving 50% vacancies for two castes only as noted above whereas remaining 50% vacancies were being offered to the remaining 35 castes. Case set up in the respective writ petition is that the Honble Supreme Court in the case referred to above has now clearly ruled that such policy of reservation within reservation was unconstitutional. It is then disclosed that on the basis of this judgment, the petitioners had given representations to the State Government to stop 50% reservation of vacancies for Mazbi Sikhs and Balmikis, being contrary to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme court. As per the petitioners, the State was likely to fill up various posts in different departments by offering 50% of such posts to these two castes out of the scheduled caste on the basis of instructions (Annexure P1) and that said course would totally be unsustainable in view of the law now settled by the Honble Supreme Court. When the Govt, of Punjab failed to attend the issues raised by the petitioners, the present writ petitions have been filed.

(3.) On 26.9.2005, this Court issued notice in the first writ petition. On that day only, notice regarding stay was also issued. On 9.11.2005, this Court passed an interim order to the effect that any appointment made in terms of the impugned instructions shall be subject to the final out-come of this writ petition. On 22.2.2006, Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the policy decision in' terms of the judgment of Supreme Court was likely to be taken within four weeks. The writ petition was, accordingly, adjourned to 6.4.2006. On that date, the case was adjourned to 24.5.2006 giving final opportunity to the State to take a final decision in the matter within 4 weeks. It was further directed by this Court that in case no decision was taken, then the Secretary, Department of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes will appear in person to assist the Court. During the pendency of the writ petitions, some applications came to be filed seeking impleadment. Notice in some of the applications were issued to the counsel for the petitioners and ultimately the main case was adjourned to 25.7.2006, on which date, the writ petitions have been finally heard.