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.

1

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’  

2

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.

3

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.

4

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.    

5

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.  

6