Balbir Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2814 OF 2011

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.18355 of 2004)

Balbir Singh .....Appellant.

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. .....Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18th July, 2003

delivered in CWP No.14328 of 2000 by the High Court of Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh, the appellant has filed this appeal.

2 3. The grievance of the appellant before the High Court was that he

was wrongly not appointed as an Art and Craft teacher. It was the case

of the appellant that certain candidates belonging to backward class `A'

category had been given appointment against the posts of general

category and had it not been done so, the appellant would have got the

appointment.

4. It was also the case of the appellant that certain candidates, who

had secured same marks as secured by the appellant, were given

appointment whereas he was not appointed to the post in question.

5. After hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of record, the

High Court rejected the petition by the Judgment dated 18th July, 2003.

6. In the impugned Judgment it has been observed that some

backward class `A' category candidates had secured more marks than

the cut off marks determined for the general category candidates and,

therefore, on the basis of their merit, they had been given appointment

and, therefore, it could not be said that the respondent-Authorities had

committed a mistake by giving appointment to backward class `A'

3

category candidates against the posts of general category, especially

when that was in accordance with the law.

7. Factually, the court found that no candidate of general class, who

had secured less marks than the appellant, was appointed as an Art and

Craft teacher and, therefore, the petition had been rejected.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a similar

grievance before this Court. Moreover, the learned counsel submitted

that there was one vacancy as Shri Kartar Singh, who had been

appointed as an Art and Craft teacher had submitted his resignation

and, therefore, on the vacancy which had arisen on account of

resignation of Shri Kartar Singh, the appellant should have been

appointed as an Art and Craft teacher.

9. On behalf of the respondent-Authorities the learned counsel

submitted that life of the waiting list was only one year and the waiting

list lapsed on 27th April, 2000 and, therefore, though the appellant's

name was in the waiting list, he could not have been appointed after 27th

April, 2000.

4 10. We heard learned counsel and also perused the record which had

been called for.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel and on perusal of the record

including the select list and the waiting list, we do not find any

substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

the appellant.

12. It is true that some persons belonging to the backward class `A'

category had been appointed along with the candidates of general

category because they had secured more marks than the cut off marks

determined for selecting the candidates of the general category and,

therefore, on their merit they were given appointment. In our opinion,

the said action of the appointing authority was in consonance with the

law laid down by this Court and, therefore, we do not find any illegality

committed by the respondents in doing so, especially when those

candidates belonging to the backward class `A' category had secured

even more marks than what the appellant had secured.

5 13. Upon perusal of the record, we find that the appellant had

secured 62 marks whereas the last candidate of the general category

who was selected had secured 71 marks. In view of the said fact, it can

not be said that any candidate who had secured lesser marks than the

appellant had been given appointment as an Art and Craft teacher so

far as the general category is concerned.

14. The waiting list lapsed on 27th April, 2000 and, therefore, the said

list could not have been operated after 27th April, 2000. In the

circumstances, if any vacancy had arisen after 27th April, 2000, the

waiting list could not have been operated for filling up of such a

vacancy. In the circumstances, the submission with regard to giving

appointment to the appellant against vacancy arising on account of

resignation of Shri Kartar Singh cannot be taken into account. It is

also pertinent to note that the submission with regard to resignation of

Shri Kartar Singh had not been supported by any material on record

and the said submission was made orally by the learned counsel

appearing for the appellant at the time of hearing. However, the

learned counsel appearing for the Authorities submitted that Shri

Kartar Singh had resigned after 27th April, 2000.

6 15. For the aforestated reasons and for the reasons recorded by the

High Court, we do not find any substance in the submissions made by

the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and, in our opinion, the

impugned order passed by the High Court is just and proper and,

therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

..................................................J.

(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

.................................................J.

(ANIL R. DAVE)

New Delhi

March 31, 2011.