Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaspal Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 20052 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 20052 of 2012
Date of Decision : October 08, 2012
Jaspal Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioner has approached this court praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.06.2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission rejecting the representation of the petitioner for consideration for appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Political Science.
Petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement No. 3, applied for the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Political Science. CWP No. 20052 of 2012 2 Out of 216 posts, 154 posts were meant for the General Category and 11 posts were reserved for Ex-Servicemen (hereinafter referred to as 'ESM') category. Out of these 11 posts reserved for ex- servicemen, 7 posts were meant for male and 4 for the female category. Petitioner belongs to the Dependents of Ex-Servicemen (hereinafter referred to as 'DESM') category and would have a claim for appointment to the post in the category of ex-
servicemen/dependents of ex-servicemen only when eligible ex- servicemen are not available for appointment. Last date for receipt of the applications was fixed as 17.07.2009. Petitioner applied under the dependents of ex-servicemen category. Screening test was held for shortlisting the candidates on 19.12.2010. Result of the test was declared on 24.12.2010 by the Haryana Public Service Commission. 21 candidates were declared qualified in the subject of Lecturer (Political Science) in Male ESM category with cut off 43 marks. One female candidate in ESM category qualified the screening test with cut off 51 marks and 5 dependents of ex-servicemen female were declared qualified with cut off marks 26.
On 14.12.2010 before the declaration of the result of the screening test, a notice was issued that candidates three times to the number of advertised posts will be called for interview in order of merit. Out of the so declared eligible candidates, if a candidate is adjudged ineligible before or at the time of interview, in such a case, the candidate next in order of merit and otherwise eligible in all CWP No. 20052 of 2012 3 respects from amongst those who are not in three times zone, will be called for interview in lieu of candidates adjudged ineligible.
Out of the shortlisted 27 candidates in the category of ESM, 6 candidates though had qualified the screening test but were adjudged ineligible, therefore, the next eligible candidates as per merit were to be called. 7 candidates were bracketed, who had obtained 39 marks in order of merit and, therefore, they were all to be called for interview, which included Roll No. 1822 and he was called for interview. Interviews were held and the final result was declared on 07.04.2012, wherein candidate with Roll No. 1822 was selected , who has been impleaded as respondent No. 4, who, the petitioner contends, was not eligible in the shortlisted select list and, therefore, his selection is illegal.
Since the petitioner belongs to the DESM category and the eligible candidates of the ESM category were available, he was treated in the general category, in which also the petitioner was shortlisted. He was interviewed but could not be selected. He has now, through the present writ petition, assailed the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 apart from challenging the order dated 21.06.2012 passed by the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission-respondent No. 3 on the ground that the petitioner deserves to be appointed as he had been selected and shortlisted whereas respondent No. 4 was not even shortlisted but has been called for interview and selected.
CWP No. 20052 of 2012 4
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the selection of respondent No. 4 cannot be sustained as there were only 7 posts, which were reserved for the ESM (Male) category. Respondent No. 4 was not shortlisted as per the result, which was declared on 24.12.2010 (Annexure P-3) and was rather shown as an unqualified candidate as per the information supplied by the Haryana Public Service Commission (Annexure P-6). The candidate, who has been declared as unqualified, could not have been called for interview and selected. In any case, he contends that as per the information supplied to him (Annexure P-6), the name of the petitioner figures at Sr. No. 6 of the unqualified ESM (Male) candidates. Since 6 candidates were declared ineligible out of the shortlisted candidates and out of these, four seats in the ESM (Female) cateogry, in the ultimate result, were declared as vacant due to non-availability of candidates, which means that only two candidates in the Male category could have been called for interview and calling of respondent No. 4 for the interview and selecting him would not be in accordance with law. He, accordingly, prays for setting aside the selection of respondent No. 4 and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the DESM (Male) Category.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.
CWP No. 20052 of 2012 5
Petitioner admittedly belongs to the category of DESM (Male). He can only be appointed, in case no candidate of the ESM category is available. Admittedly, ESM Male candidates were available and none of the ESM Male seats remained unfilled. If that be so, claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Lecturer (School Cadre) in Political Science does not survive.
It would not be out of way to mention here that the candidature of the petitioner was considered under the general category, wherein he was shortlisted and interviewed but could not be selected. In the light of the above, the claim of the petitioner for appointing him under the DESM category in the light of there being no unfilled posts of ESM (Male) category, cannot be granted.
The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
October 08, 2012 JUDGE
pj