ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 10096 of 1999 and 492 of 2000 involving the identical questions of law.

(2.) In CWP No. 10096 of 1999, petitioner Anil Kumar is the son of an armed service personnel who died in action in war with the Pakistan in the year 1971. Petitioner in the other writ petition viz. CWP 492 of 2000, namely Dilbag, who was working as Airman in the Indian Air Force, was discharged on Jan. 31, 1991 from the Air Force. The reasons given for the discharge were "medically boarded out". In the Pension Certificate issued to the said petitioner, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was suffering from Bronchial Asthma, which was accepted as attributable to/aggravated by service and was assessed at 30% for two years as the disability element and was accordingly granted disability pension. Both the petitioners applied for Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Services in response to an advertisement, Annexure P.1 issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission. The last date for submitting the applications was April 15, 1997. The petitioners appeared in the competitive written test and after qualifying the written test, they were called for interview, but ultimately they did not make the grade for appointment. The grievance made in the present writ petitions is that as per Haryana Government instructions dated March 6, 1972, issued by the Chief Secretary to all Heads of Departments under the subject "Rehabilitation of disabled ex-servicemen personnel and dependents of those killed/disabled in action", it had been provided that reservation for the ex-servicemen should be in the following order:-

(3.) Petitioner in CWP No. 492 of 2000 (Dilbag) claimed that he fell in category (i) above, whereas petitioner in the other case claimed that he fell in category (ii) above and, therefore, they should have been given appointment to the H.C.S. (Executive Branch) and Allied Services in preference to candidates from category (iii) above. In fact, according to the petitioners, the appointments have been made from category (iii) in derogation of the rights of the petitioners. In CWP No. 10096 of 2000, notice of motion had been issued. Reply has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to the following part of the instructions. Annexure R.1 with the written statement, which is a complete set of instructions dated March 6, 1972:-