http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SATBIR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/05/1997

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:       JU D G ME N T MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR,J.      The appellant  is a  Sainideclared  us  of  the  other backward classin the State ofHaryanaa notification dated 5.2.1991.   This notification  inter, providesthat persons belonging   to the Saini caste and residing in the  state of Haryanawill  be considered  asforming  a  part otherback classesin the state ofHaryana.      Two advertisement bearing  No.1 of  1995and  No.7 of 1995 were  issued by  the    Subordinate  Service  Selection Board, haryanafor recruitment of candidates to  various posts.One of the posts so advertised was  that of lectures in political   science. under Advertisement No.1 of 1995 15 posts of lecturers  in political science  were advertised of which  one   was  reserved   for  backward   classes.  Under Advertisement No.7  of 1995,   inter  alia,  48 posts  of lectures in  political sciencewere advertisedout of which 10 were reserved for backward classes.Out of these 10, six were reserved for backward  classes inthe "A"category and four were reserved for backwardclassesin the ’B’ category. After the  Advertisement  1 of 1995 andbefore Advertisement 7 of 1995, instructionwere issued  bythe Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana to all heads of departments  and other authorities stating   that  thereservation    for  backward classeswas   enhancedfrom 10%  to 27%   andthat amongst backward classes,  it was  decided tocreatetwo  blocks, Block ’A’  and 11% would be reserved for backward classes in Block ’B’  and 16%  of seats would be reserved for  backward classesin Block ‘A’ and 11% would be reserved for  backward classesin  Block ’B’  There was also  a reservation  of 10% for ex-servicemen   and 3%  for  physicallyhandicapped. Castes forming part  of Block’A’ andcastes formingpart of Block  ’B’ were enumerated.Saini caste wasin Block ’B’ that is why the  advertisement7  of 1995  divided the ten seats for   backward   classesinto six  seatsfor backward class candidates  in Block  ’A’and  4 seats   for  backward class candidates  in Block  ’B’ Afterthese  instructions, therefore, theappellant formed a partof Block ’B’ amongst backward classes.      The appellant  applied for the  post  oflecturer  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

political   science. Both   theadvertisementswere clubbed together in  selectionof candidates Advertisement No.7 of 1995 stated  that the  post which  were   advertised  under Advertisement No.7  of 1995  were in  additionto the posts advertised under  Advertisement  1 of1995 need  not apply again. Their  previous application would be considered.Thus application   under   both these  advertisementwere clubbed together, candidates   were  interviewed and selected taking into   account theapplicationsunder both  these advertisements.The  appellant was  not of  the  candidates selected   in the  backward class category.  Inthe order of merit, he  was at  serial No.  5 in  Block ’B’of  selected backward classcandidates. Hewas   gives  an appointment letter dated  4.4.196. Pursuant to his   appointment, the appellant jointed  his post on  18.4.1996.However,  he received a  registered letter  dated 11.6.1996 statingthat there had  beenan   error  in issuinghim   an appointment letter and  theappointment  letter   was  being  withdrawn. According to  the respondent  there wasan error in granting an appointmentto the appellant  because theone  post of backward  class   candidatewhich was  advertised  by Advertisement 1 of 1995  was erroneously considered bythem as forming a part of Block ’B’ while  it should have formed a partof Block  ’A’ Hence  the appointment  given  to the appellant  was withdrawn.  The appellant has challengedthis finding. He hasalso  urged that prior to his being selected and appointed  he  washolding the  post  oflecturer  in political science  in Rajdevi  Multi-PurposeCollege for WomenBehrian.  He resigned from  his post in order to accept the  appointment   offered  to him on his  selection pursuant to  the Advertisements 1 and 7 of 1995.  Now he is deprived   of both  these posts.  He  has alsostatedthat he is  a physically handicapped personand a  a sympathetic view should be taken ofhis situation.      Under Advertisement 1 of 1995. 15 posts oflecturers in political  science   were   advertised    while      under Advertisement 7 of 1995  48 posts of lecturersin political sciencewere  advertised, making   of  total   of 63  posts. Since applicants  of all these 63 posts were considered for selection after the coming   into   force  ofinstructions dated 20.7.1995,  we will  have  to take  into account the roster prepared  under these instructions for reservation of posts   forBlock  ’A’  and Block’B’  backward  class candidates.  As per  the  roster  which  forms a  part  of instructions issued  on20th  of July,1995  the  following roster points  are preserved  for   candidates belonging  to Block ’B’.      Block "B’      "9-18-27  (ESM)  -63-46-54(ESM)-63-      72-81 (ESM) -89(PH)-98"      Sixty three  postsof  lecturers in  political  science were being  filled fifteen under Advertisement 1 of 1995 and forty  eighty under advertisement 7 of 1995.  We will ignore roster points  27 and  54 whichare for ex-servicemen.Thus upto and  including   serial No.  63, five  roster point are reserved is  atSerial No.5  inthe  merit list of backward class candidates   belonging  to Block ’B’ Theappellant is at  Serial   No.5  in  the  merit  list of  backward  class candidates belonging  to Block’B’ Therefore, the letter of appointment  was   rightly  issued  tothe  appellant. The respondents were  required to consider the total of 63 posts advertised andgive roster   points  in accordance with the roster which  forms a part of the instructions of 20th July, 1995. If  this is   how the appointments are examined, the appellant has  been property  selected and   appointed. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

termination ofthe appellant’s  service, therefore  is not justified.      The appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed   to  continue  the  appellant  in service  in service. the  appellantshall  be accommodatedin the first available vacancy   fora backward class candidate belonging to ’B’category at  roster  point 63.There will, however, be no order as costs inthe circumstances of the case.