LexRAVINDER KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 116
RAVINDER KUMAR
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3127 of 2008)
APRIL 22, 2010
[D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]
Service Law - Selection - Haryana Police - Post of
Constable -
Vacancies in general category as well as
•
C reserved categories -
Reserved category for ex-
servicemen(ESM) comprising of three distinct sub categories,
ESM (General Category), ESM BC(A) and ESM BC(B)
category - Appointment of appellant in ESM BC{B) category
-
Quashed by Court -
Termination -
Challenge to -
o Respondents directed by Court to consider the case of
appellant in general category - Case of appellant considered
but he was declined appointment in that category -
Writ
petition filed by appellant - Dismissed by High Court - On
appeal, held: The two candidates selected in ESM BC(B)
E category ahead of the appellant ought to have been selected
against vacancies in ESM (General) category as per their
merit since they scored more marks than the last two
candidates in the ESM (general) category - The Select List
thus was required to be recast and candidates suitably shifted
F from reserved category to general category in which event
appointments could be offered to other candidates in ESM
BC(B} category such as appellant depending on their merit
- However such exercise at this distant point of time could
unsettle the settled position - In interest of justice, direction
G given for fresh appointment of appellant against any vacancy
,
in ESM (General Category) or ESM BC (BJ category, and if
no vacancy available in the said two categories, for fresh
appointment against any vacancy in General category - Such
appointment, however, would not entitle appellant to any back
H
116
RAVINDER KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA AND
117
ORS.
wages, seniority or any other benefit based on his earlier A
appointment.
Selection process was initiated to fill up available
posts of Constables in the Haryana Police. Apart from
vacancies in the General category there were vacancies
B
in the reserved categories also, including the reserved
category for ex-servicemen, which in turn was divided
into three distinct sub categories, namely, ESM (General
Category), ESM BC(A) and ESM BC(B) category.
Appellant, a candidate in the reserved category of C
ESM/BC(B), was eventually placed at Sr.No.3 in the ESM/
BC(B) category. An appointment order was issued in his
favour pursuant whereto he joined the Police Department.
An unsuccessful candidate in ESM/BC(B) category o
challenged the appointment of appellant before the High
Court contending that he had a preferential right to
appointment in the ESM/BC(B) category on account of his
being an ex-serviceman in comparison to appellant, who
being a dependent of an ex-serviceman, stood a chance
only if no ex-serviceman was available for appointment.
The High Court quashed the appointment of the appellant
with a direction that the claim of ex-servicemen
candidates would have priority over those who are
dependents of such ex-servicemen. Consequent upon
E
F
the said direction, the services of the appellant were
terminated.
Appellant challenged the termination order before the
High Court which directed the respondents to consider
the case of the appellant in the general category. In
G
compliance with the above direction the Superintendent
of Police considered the case of the appellant but
declined him appointment in that category.
The appellant filed writ petition before the High Court
H
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 5 S.C.R.
A praying for issue of writ of certiorari quashing the order
passed by the Superintendent of Police as also a
mandamus directing the respondents to supply a
complete list of selected candidates in respect of all the
categories. The High court dismissed the petition holding
B that since the marks scored by the appellant were less
than the marks awarded to the last candidate in the
general category, he could make no grievance against
his non-selection in that category.
Before this Court, the appellant contended that the
C denial of appointment to him was discriminatory, wholly
unjustified and arbitrary. He contended that the High.
Court had failed to notice certain important aspects that
render the order unsustainable, in particular the fact that
two of the candidates selected in the reserved category
D having scored marks that were higher than those scored
by the last candidate selected in tExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.