(Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Madho Singh _______________________________________ Appellant
v.
State of Punjab & Anr. ____________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2010, decided on July 11, 2017
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by
Kurian Joseph, J.:—
1. The grievance of the appellant is that he was not considered for appointment as Agricultural Development Officer against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category and against that slot, a General category candidate was appointed.
2. There is no dispute that the General category candidate, namely, Baghel Singh, is senior to the appellant, but according to the appellant, since it was a post reserved for Scheduled Caste category, though the appellant was junior, he being the Scheduled Caste, as against the General category, the appellant should have been appointed.
3. We do not find that such a case was argued before the High Court. In any case, the affected parties are also not before us. The appellant is retired also.
4. Therefore, we dispose of this appeal with a liberty to the appellant to make a representation regarding his alleged claim for notional promotion in the slot reserved for Scheduled Caste category in the post of Agricultural Development Officer. In the event of such a representation being made within a period of one month from today, the same shall be considered by the State after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellant and any other affected parties. The State shall pass appropriate orders within a period of four months from the date of making the representation.
5. No costs.
Civil Appeal No(s). 20/2010
Madho Singh _______________________________________ Appellant
v.
The State of Punjab & Anr _________________________ Respondent(s)
Date: 11-07-2017 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
(Before Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Ms. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Rajinder Mathur, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
6. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
7. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
———
