BALWINDER SINGH Vs. SEEMA BRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order of mine, aforesaid three review applications shall be disposed of as the same have been filed for recalling of order dtd. 19/2/2018. However, the facts are being extracted from RA-CR No.63-CII of 2018 in COCP No.2241 of 2015 titled as Balwinder Singh vs. Smt. Seema Brar and another.

(2.) The present review application has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sec. 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for recalling of order dtd. 19/2/2018 passed in As per case of the applicant-petitioner, the respondents had issued an advertisement in March 1992 for selection of Assistant Lineman. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner had applied in the general category. The petitioner is Saini by caste. At that point of time the inclusion of the said caste in the backward class of general category candidates was under reconsideration as is evident from letter dtd. 12/9/1991. The petitioner was selected and appointed. The selection process was challenged by the unsuccessful candidates and was quashed vide judgment dtd. 29/11/1995. Consequently, fresh advertisement was issued in March 1996. The selected candidates were permitted to participate in the said selection process but their candidature was to be considered on the basis of their original applications. However, by then, Ahir/Saini caste was included in the category of backward classes vide notification dtd. 7/6/1995. The petitioner obtained his caste certificate and appeared in the interview with the said certificate. Since he was selected candidate, he did not fill up fresh application form and in the application form submitted in the year 1992, he was shown as general category candidate. The result was declared in the year 1997 and the petitioner was declared not selected. The petitioner was considered in the general category and not in the BC category, despite his caste certificate, having been produced at the time of the interview. In the result so declared, candidates belonging to the reserved category who secured higher marks were appointed against the reserved category seats and this action was challenged before this Court. The writ petition was allowed and it was directed that the candidates belonging to reserved category but higher in merit should be adjusted against general category seats. Vide letter dtd. 7/1/2014, backward class candidates who had appeared in the selection process of the year 1992 were invited to apply. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he had applied as general category candidate and he was not entitled to be considered under the backward class category. This according to learned counsel for the petitioner is illegal as the petitioner was wrongly considered in General Category whereas his caste was subsequently declared as backward class vide notification dtd. 7/6/1995 (Anenxure P-9) and certificate was submitted at the time of interview.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that the contempt petition was dismissed on the ground that the applicant-petitioner did not produce his caste certificate in the year 2009 whereas he had already produced his caste certificate in the year 1997 at the time of interview. Learned counsel further submits that it was not required subsequently to submit the caste certificate again in the year 2009 as it was supplied at the time of interview. Learned counsel also submits that the category of the applicant-petitioner was declared as Backward vide notification issued in the year 1995, thereafter there was no occasion for him to apply again. The applicant-petitioner neither applied afresh nor changed his category as mentioned in the previous application form. The category of the applicant-etitioner was reflected in the attendance sheet for the interview and he appeared in the written test and interview without filling up the form in the year 1997 as per directions issued by this Court. The caste certificate of the applicant-petitioner was accepted for the first time in the interview and his category was mentioned as BC-B but he was wrongly considered in General Category and his candidature was wrongly rejected being in General Category. Learned counsel also submits that this fact was escaped from the notice of this Court whereas it was appended as Annexure P-12. At the end, learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that order dtd. 19/2/2018 deserves to be modified/recalled in the interest of justice. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has also relied upon judgments rendered by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Promotee Telecom Engineers Forum and others vs. D.S. Mathur, Secretary, Department of Telecommunications, 2008(11) SCC 579, Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 67 and Gulam Abbas and others vs. Mulla Abdul Kadar (dead) through his executors, 1970(3) Supreme Court Cases 643.