RAJIV PRASHAR Vs. NARESH DUBEY AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2009-7-318
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 21,2009

RAJIV PRASHAR Appellant
VERSUS
NARESH DUBEY AND OTHERS Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KAMLA GAIND V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
GUJARAT STATE DY. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERS ASSN V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED]
PURSHOTTAM SINGH V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [REFERRED]
R.N. NANJUNDAPPA,V. T. THIMMAIAH AND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
PUNJAB SEB V. SEEMA [REFERRED]
RAI SAHIB RAM JAWAYA KAPUR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
B N NAGARAJAN LINGAPPA VEERAPPA SHINDAL VS. STATE OF MYSORES:STATE OF MYSORES [REFERRED]
G S LAMBA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
NEELIMA SHANGLA PH D CANDTDATE VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. ISHWARSINGHKHATRI [REFERRED]
SHANKARSAN DASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
ASHA KAUL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
PREMIUM GRANITES VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED]
STATE OF ORISSA R C ROUT BINAYAK PANDA H C PRUSTY VS. SUKANTI MOHAPATRA:SUKANTI MOHAPATRA:RABINARAYAN MALL:STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. SECRETARIAT ASSISTANT SUCCESSFUL EXAMINEES UNION [REFERRED]
UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL ANIL MALIK VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S S UPPALAND ANOTHER [REFERRED]
PREM SINGH VS. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [REFERRED]
HANUMAN PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD VS. ANAND PRAKASH MISHRA [REFERRED]
SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
M P OIL EXTRACTION K N OIL INDUSTRIES VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]
SYNDICATE BANK VS. SHANKAR PAUL [REFERRED]
SURINDERSINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED]
ASHOK KUMAR UPPAL VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED]
KAMLESH KUMAR SHARMA VS. YOGESH KUMAR GUPTA [REFERRED]
VIRENDRA S HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
VIRENDER S HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN VS. A ARTHUR JEEN [REFERRED]
S RENUKA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED]
VINODAN T VS. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT [REFERRED]
BAITARANI GRAMIYA BANK VS. PALLAB KUMAR [REFERRED]
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK VS. ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA [REFERRED]
VIRENDER SINGH HOODA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
STATE OF U P VS. RAJKUMAR SHARMA [REFERRED]
MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN VS. U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [REFERRED]
PRINCIPAL MEHAR CHAND POLYTECHNIC VS. ANU LAMBA [REFERRED]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VS. M T LATHEESH [REFERRED]
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. NIRAJ KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED]
ARUN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. ANJU JAIN [REFERRED]
MOHINDER SINGH CHAHAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This order will dispose of 21 Letters Patent Appeals being LPA Nos. 7 to 27 of 2007, arising out of common judgment of learned Single Judge. LPA Nos. 11 to 14 have been filed by the State of Punjab, as order of the learned Single Judge covered four writ petitions and the remaining 17 appeals have been filed by the affected candidates. 16 appeals are at the instance of four candidates, who have filed four appeals each, while one appeal is by three candidates.
(2.)Grievance of the writ petitioners was against appointment of appellants Rajiv Prashar, Amar Pal Singh, Viney Bublani, Mohinder Pal, Ms. Babita, Gurpreet Singh and Puneet Goyal (who are all wards of terrorists' victims) as also against non-appointment of the writ petitioners to the posts of Punjab Civil Service (Executive Branch) [PCS(EB)].
(3.)The writ petitioners applied for the posts of PCS(EB) in response to advertisement dated 19.6.1993. In the said advertisement, the vacancies notified in general category, were 7, 18 and 6 for PCS(EB), Excise and Taxation Officers and Assistant Employment Officers respectively. Names of the writ petitioners were beyond Sr.No. 7 and, therefore, they did not figure in the list of first seven general candidates against vacancies in the PCS(EB). They were, however, given appointments as Excise and Taxation Officers. It was, inter-alia, submitted that if wards of victims of terrorists had not been appointed, the said vacancies would have been available in the general category to which the writ petitioners could make a claim. Case of the petitioners further was that their names should have been placed in Register 'B' and they should have been appointed against the available posts of PCS(EB). There was also challenge to the extent of reservation but the said issue does not arise in these appeals.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.