Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2020 (PNJ)

Gurmail Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-11-19

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, AJAI LAMBA

body2007
Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of appointment of respondent No. 3 or 4 as District Manager, Punjab School Education Board and to appoint the petitioner in his place, the petitioner being Balmiki or Mazhbhi. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he belongs to SC. Balmiki. He joined service as Clerk with the Punjab School Education Board in the year 1982 and was later promoted as Senior Assistant, On 16.11.2001, the Punjab School Education Board issued an advertisement inviting applications for four posts of District Managers by way of direct recruitment. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who belonged to the SC category, were given appointment. The petitioner represented on the basis of instructions of the State Government dated 5.5.1975 and 8.4.1980 to the effect that Balmiki and Mazhabi Sikh candidates out of the SCs be given first preference. The State Government vide letter dated 14.2.2003, gave a direction in favour of the petitioner but the Punjab School Education Board has not given appointment to the petitioner. 3. Reply has been filed by respondent No.4 stating that the petitioner was lower in the category of SCs. It has been further stated that the State Government could not interfere in favour of the petitioner when appointment of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was valid. Reliance has been placed on a Constitution bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 2005 SC 162. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon provisions of Section 4(5) of the Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 (in short, `the Act), which in substance is to the same effect as the instructions. 5. We do not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, in view of judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in EV Chinnaiah (supra). Therein, it was held that any executive action or legislative enactment which interferes with the castes found in the Presidential list, will be violative of the constitution and that all castes in the Presidential list formed one class. Any sub classification or micro classification of the castes mentioned therein will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therein, it was held that any executive action or legislative enactment which interferes with the castes found in the Presidential list, will be violative of the constitution and that all castes in the Presidential list formed one class. Any sub classification or micro classification of the castes mentioned therein will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was also held that the State Legislature had no jurisdiction to enact the law, regrouping the castes, mentioned in Presidential list, in further classes, the same being beyond the purview of Articles 15(4), 16(4), Entry 41 of List 11 or Entry 25 of List III to the Seventh Schedule. Thus, the provisions of Section 4 (5) of the Act relied upon on behalf of the petitioner, are unconstitutional, in view of Constitution Bench judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in EV Chinnaiah (supra). 6. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.