RAJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant had, in 1980, made an application for one of the four posts of District Food and Supplies Officer advertised by the Haryana public service commission. Thereafter two further posts also fell vacant and these six posts were filled up pursuant to the selections made by the Haryana public service commission from among the applicants. Out of the posts so advertised, one post was reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and the remaining posts were to be filled on the basis of open merit.

(2.) It seems that the appellant was not selected, inter alia, on the grounds that his age was more than 30 years on the prescribed date, and he did not a possess the requisite three years' service as prescribed in the advertisement. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High court challenging his non-selection. Ultimately by an order of this court dated 28/7/1989 in Rajinder Singh v. State of Haryana this court held that he did possess three years' experience in view of the judgment of this court in Civil No. 294 of 1982 disposed of on 7/4/1989. It was also held by this court that since the appellant was the son of an army serviceman killed in action, he was entitled to age relaxation. This court, therefore, gave a direction to the respondents to consider the question of the appellant's appointment in accordance with the law within a period of two months. A similar direction had been given in Civil No. 294 of 1982 in respect of two other persons who are Respondents 8 and 9 in the present appeal.

(3.) The Public Service Commission has filed an affidavit in this Court in which the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission has stated that pursuant to the order of 28-7-1989', the appellant was interviewed on 14-9- 1989. Respondents 8 and 9 were also interviewed. On the basis of the evaluation of his performance in the interview, the appellant was placed at sl. No. 31 in the merit list in comparison to the other candidates who had been interviewed for these posts earlier. Since there were about 30 candidates above the appellant, he could not be selected. Respondents 8 and 9, however, were found eligible on merit for appointment and were appointed.