SUMAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner by means of this petition has prayed that one post of Constable in the 6th India Reserve Battalion (IRB) should be reserved for wards of ex -servicemen.

(2.) THE undisputed facts are that the Petitioner is a bona fide Himachali. He is the ward of an ex - serviceman and is qualified to hold the post of Constable. The Director General of Police vide recruitment notice Ext. P -6 invited applications for filling up 104 posts in 6th IRB from amongst male candidates. The advertisement notice provided that the reservation of vacancies for various categories i.e. SC, ST, OBC, Sportsmen, Ex -servicemen, Wards of Ex -servicemen in case of recruitment to 5th IRBn (Mahilla) Home Guards, Wards of freedom fighters, etc. will be as per instructions of the Government. The Petitioner appeared in the physical efficiency test and was issued a call letter for written examination. He also passed the written examination and therefore, expected that he would be called for the interviews. His case was rejected on the ground that no seats were reserved for wards of ex -servicemen.

(3.) THE Petitioner also relies upon the call letter wherein under the heading of Sub -category he has been shown to be a ward of an ex -serviceman and was also asked to produce certificate of the competent authority in this behalf. Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid documents clearly show that a seat was reserved for wards of ex -servicemen and now the State cannot be permitted to turn around and state that no seat was reserved for wards of ex -servicemen. In support of his contention Shri Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate, has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in A.P. Public Service Commission V/s. P. Chandra Mouleesware Reddy and Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 330, and Amlan Jyoti Borooah V/s. State of Assam and Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 227.