JAGDISH CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This District Education Officer, Panchkula invited applications for admission to the Diploma in Education Course in the Government Teachers Training Institute, Dharla Morni Hills, through advertisement dated 20th September, 1997. The petitioner, who was eligible to take the course in terms of the advertisement, applied within the stipulated time. On the assessment of the inter-se merit of the various applicants, the petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste was shown at serial No. 11 in the merit list of that Category and as 10 seats had been reserved for the Scheduled Castes, he was shown at serial No. 1 in the waiting list. The respondents, thereafter, filled in the seats offered in the Institute including the 10 reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner has come to this Court claiming that Prem Singh, a candidate who was at serial No. 1 in the Scheduled Castes category, had obtained 71% marks in his merit assessment and by virtue of these marks, was entitled to admission against the General Category seat as well as the last candidate who had been admitted in the General Category had obtained 62.5%. It is the petitioner's plea that Prem Singh aforesaid was to be counted as a candidate in the General Category as held by this Court in Jaskaran Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1995 1 RSJ 510 (P&H) and the seat that would resultantly fall vacant in the Scheduled Caste Category, would enable the petitioner to secure admission.

(2.) On notice of motion, a written statement has been filed by respondents No. 1 to 3. The fact that 10 seats had been earmarked for the Scheduled Caste candidates and that the petitioner was at serial No. 1 in the waiting list as averred by him, stand admitted. It has also not been denied that Prem Singh who had secured 71% marks was meritorious enough to obtain admission against a General Category seat as well.

(3.) Mr. S.P. Laler, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the matter in issue was fully covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jaskaran Singh's case (super) and in the light of this precedent, the petitioner was entitled to admission.