When the matter was carried tothis companyrt, it set aside theorder and remitted the matter to the High Court forreconsideration.
He companytendedthat since it was the solitary post, reservation infavour of a Scheduled Caste would amount to 100 reservation violating Articles 16 1 an 14 of Constitution.
The said post was reserved for scheduledCaste candidates as per the roster and inview of the judgment of thisCourt in Aarti Ray Choudhury V s.Union of India 1974 1 SCC 87 BhagatRam, the second respondent,who was a qualified candidate was companysidered andduly promoted to the said post.
Asper office Report dated September 13, 1996, the numberice sent to the first respondent wasreceived back by the Registry withthe postal endorsement No such person indicating avoidance thereof on his part.
The learned single judge observedthat hefelt bound by the Division Bench judgment in Dr. ParminderKaur V s. State of Punjab 1976 1SLR 502 wherein it washeld that a solitary vacancy inthe relevant year cannot be treatedas reserved one as that would amount to reservation of 100 in violation of Article 14 an 16 1 of the Constitution Thus though he was inclined to take theview that companystitutionally it was permissible, inview of the Division Benchjudgment in Dr. Parminder Kaurs case, he allowedthe writ petition .
This appeal by special leave arises fromthe judgment passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana, Chandigarh on 22nd November ,1995 inLPA No.351 of 1981.
The admitted facts are that thefirst respondent, a generalcandidate, was appointed asa junior Technical Assistant in the Department of Industries ofthe State of Punjab.
The first respondent, feeling aggrieved,filed writ petition in the High Court seeking relief in the form of amandamus or direction to the Government to dereserve the carried forward post and to companysider his case for promotionas a general candidate.
The second respondentwas directed tofile Counter affidavit.
Consequently, he was setex parte.
Leave granted.
Wehave heard learned companynsel for the appellant and the second respondent.
Even today the first respondent is number appearing either in person or through companynsel.
The DivisionBench by the impugned judgment held thus Consequently, weare ofthe view that since it is a single post cadre, there companyld number be any reservation at alland thequestion of applicabilityof thequestion of applicability of Parminder Kaurs case supra alsodoes number arise on the facts of the present case, Thus this appeal by special leave.
On appeal, it was affirmed by the Division Bench.
