Sushma Rani v. State Of Punjab And Others



 





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Letters Patent Appeal No. 550 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.02.2024 Sushma Rani .....Appellant versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI, JUDGE Present :

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Tada, Advocate, for the appellant. ****
 

  

  

  Consideration of the present appeal is to the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner had been dismissed upholding the rejection of the petitioner's case for consideration for the post of Constable (female) under Scheduled Caste Category.

2.

The learned Single Judge relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Haryana Public Service Commission vs. Shweta Kashyap and another 2019(3) SCT 214, to hold that though the petitioner had married a man of another State belonging to the same caste i.e. 'Balmiki' caste, which has been recognized as reserved category but she would not be entitled for the benefit of reservation available to the candidates of her husband's State. The petitioner originally belongs to Haryana and is 'Balmiki' by caste which has been recognized as a Scheduled Caste category in the State of Haryana and had married a person in District Sangrur and her husband is also 'Balmiki' by caste which has also been recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab. However, on account of the fact that her domicile certificate showed that she is a resident of Kurukshetra being the daughter of Karnail Singh, she had been considered not eligible which order has consequently been upheld. The Division Bench also noticed a judgment of the Apex Court given by a three9Judges Bench in
 

    RAVINDER KUMAR 2024.03.05 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document



 




   

   wherein same identical issue was involved and the larger Bench of the Apex Court had itself been bound down by the two constitutional Bench judgments of the Apex Court and did not interfere in the order of the High Court which had also rejected her claim. The said observations read as under:- 

 !"#$%& 

' "

( 


   

    

  
     )$ 

 

      

   



          
               ")*  )+  "  *  ")  & ( ,- . !)   "  & %()  / )  "  )&  !)



( !% 0 $) /!" $, $)

1 " & %() !)  . ( !% 0 $) /!" $, $)

' " & %() / ) " 

)! '))

! (

'

!) .- " / ) '2

)()+")$1 )   "  3(   !) 1 !)  $ ,  "  ( %(  ' "  

 !"#$%& 

 
  



! "#)$

! "#   4  " ( '( 1 '

$  (((  "  ($ ( ' "   %" (   #

'- )-  (' ( !  "  )33 ),

 )!!($ %,-$

&

$5 3.

Keeping in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that we are bound by the judgments of the Constitutional Benches of the Apex Court as they are binding precedents upon all the Courts. Therefore, in view of the settled principles, there is no scope for interference in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge. The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (LAPITA BANERJI) 28.02.2024 JUDGE ravinder Whether speaking/reasoned √Yes/No Whether reportable √Yes/No RAVINDER KUMAR 2024.03.05 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document