Punjab-Haryana High Court
Triveni Singh vs Unknown on 26 February, 2013
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
C.W.P. No. 12765 of 2010 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 12765 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 26, 2013
Triveni Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
State of Haryana and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. K. K. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D. D. Gupta, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
1. The petitioner, who was an applicant for the post of Assistant Lineman, has approached this court impugning the communication dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P-3), vide which his candidature was rejected on the ground that he applied in the category of the post, for which no advertisement had been issued.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response to the advertisement issued on 7.10.2007 by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short, 'the Commission') for the post of Assistant Lineman, the petitioner applied. All the posts were meant for different reserved categories including Ex-serviceman. He was fully qualified for the post in terms of the qualifications and experience required. Along with the application, the petitioner had annexed the certificate dated 11.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) showing him to be dependent of Ex-serviceman, which was valid upto 11.4.2008. The petitioner received a communication on C.W.P. No. 12765 of 2010 [2] 20.3.2009 rejecting his candidature on the ground that he applied in the category, for which advertisement had not been issued, as the posts were meant only for ESM/OSP candidates as per the advertisement. However, the petitioner was given opportunity to attend the office of the Commission on 1.4.2009 along with all the relevant documents in support of his claim.
3. The contention is that in response to the aforesaid letter issued, the petitioner attended the office of the Commission on 1.4.2009 and produced all the relevant documents including the latest certificate of his being dependent of Ex-serviceman, which was renewed and valid upto 11.4.2009, but still when the result was declared on 18.4.2010, out of 21 posts advertised in the category of Ex-serviceman (General), only 15 candidates were selected and 6 posts remained vacant. After declaration of the result, the petitioner enquired as to whether any person, who was dependent of Ex-serviceman, has been selected or not. In response to the query raised by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 informed that three persons in the category of Ex-serviceman (General) have been selected, who were dependents of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner also being in the same category and was eligible in terms of the instructions appended with the advertisement, was entitled to be selected, but his candidature has been wrongly rejected.
4. The submission is that the posts are lying vacant. The petitioner is fully eligible. He produced all the relevant documents but his candidature was still not considered. At present, he has become over-age. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in C.W.P. No. 12083 of 2010--Vikas Girdhar v. State of Haryana and another, decided on 13.1.2011.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected, as he did not append the certificate of being a dependent of Ex-serviceman along with the application. Still vide communication dated 20.3.2009, he was given opportunity to prove that he was eligible for the post, but he did not avail of that opportunity as the requisite documents were not produced. The petitioner has not produced any proof of his appearance along with the C.W.P. No. 12765 of 2010 [3] requisite documents in the office of the Commission. He further submitted that cause of action arose to the petitioner when the aforesaid communication was issued. The writ petition filed more than 1-1/2 years thereafter is belated. Final result was declared by the Commission on 18.4.2010. Now the petitioner cannot be given appointment.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
7. As is evident from the facts on record, vide advertisement dated 7.10.2007, 151 posts of Assistant Lineman were advertised. It included 21 posts of Ex-serviceman (General). As per the instructions mentioned in the advertisement, the dependent sons of Ex-serviceman, who fulfil all the conditions and qualifications laid down for the posts, will be considered on merits for the posts reserved for Ex-serviceman to the extent of non- availability of suitable Ex-serviceman candidates. The petitioner herein is dependent of Ex-serviceman. A certificate to that effect issued in his favour on 11.4.2007 and valid upto 11.4.2008 is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2.
8. Another condition mentioned in the advertisement is that Ex- serviceman/Dependents of Ex-serviceman candidates of Haryana claiming benefit of reservation will have to produce fresh eligibility certificate from the concerned Zila Sainik Board at the time of interview. The condition was apparently for the reason that the certificates were valid for a period of one year and the process of selection may take some time.
9. Vide communication dated 20.3.2009, the petitioner was informed about rejection of his candidature on the ground that he applied in the category of posts for which advertisement had not been issued. The petitioner was given opportunity to attend the office of the Commission on 1.4.2009 along with the relevant documents in case the petitioner had anything to say about his eligibility. The claim of the petitioner is that he appeared on the designated date and produced the certificate of Zila Sainik Board, Hissar, valid upto 11.4.2009, showing to be dependent of Ex- serviceman. Besides this, there is no other ground on which the candidature of the petitioner was sought to be rejected. The aforesaid fact is sought to be C.W.P. No. 12765 of 2010 [4] disputed by the respondents. However, this court finds that once the petitioner had applied in the category of dependents of Ex-serviceman and it has specifically been mentioned so in his application form, he even had a valid certificate showing him to be dependent of Ex-serviceman and is looking for employment, in my opinion, it would be hard to believe that the petitioner will not run to the office of the Commission to prove his eligibility or produce the documents required therefor. There seems to be some error somewhere. With the passage of time, as the process for selection took more than 3 years, the petitioner has also become over-age. All the posts advertised in the category of the petitioner had not been filled up, as against 21 posts only 15 candidates were selected. Even in terms of the advertisement issued, the candidature of the petitioner is required to be considered being dependent of Ex-serviceman as the Ex-servicemen as such were not available and three candidates, who were dependents of Ex- servicemen, have been appointed in the category of the petitioner.
10. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the candidature of the petitioner deserves to be considered. For the purpose, the petitioner will appear before the Commission on 15.3.2013 along with all the relevant documents including a valid certificate of petitioner being dependent of Ex- serviceman. In case the petitioner is found to be eligible, his candidature be recommended for appointment. It is made clear that the petitioner would not get any benefit for any period prior to his date of joining service. He will be put in the seniority list and will be entitled to all service benefits from the date he joins service in the cadre.
11. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge February 26, 2013 mk