Surinder Pal Parmar vs The High Court of H.P. and Others

M. Srinivasan, C.J.—The Petitioner is an ex-serviceman. He applied for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, in response to advertisement which appeared in ''The Tribune'' dated 20-1-1993. According to him, there should be a reservation for ex-servicemen in the Himachal Pradesh Higher Judical Service. Admittedly, there is no such reservation as at present, though according to him there is reservation in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service. The prayer in the writ petition is:

(i) to quash the advertisement and interview as illegal and un-constitutional;

(ii) to direct the Respondent to provide the benefit of reservation to the Petitioner in the Higher Judicial Service; and

(iii) to consider his application for the said post.

The first and third prayers are consequential to the second prayer. When it is admitted that there is no rule at present providing the reservation for ex-servicemen in the Higher Judicial Service, it is not open to the Petitioner to seek a writ to be issued by this Court for compelling the Government or concerned legislature to frame the rule to give the benefit of reservation to the Petitioner. It is well settled that the Court has no jurisdiction to compel the Government or the legislature to pass an enactment or to frame any particular rule. This position is settled by two judgments of the Supreme Court which reversed the judgment of this Court, namely. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Others Vs. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh and Others, and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. A Parent of a Student of Medical College, Simla and Others, Hence the prayer has to be rejected. Consequently, the other two prayers cannot be considered at all.

However, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner should have been considered under the general category. There is no substance in this contention, as admittedly the Petitioner wanted to be considered only as ex serviceman as if reservation is available to him. In fact, representations were made by Ex-servicemen League to the Governor of Himachal Pradesh and Chief Justice of this Court for making provision for reservation for ex-servicemen. As pointed out already there is no rule at present for giving such benefit. Hence this writ petition is dismissed.