RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment I dispose of two Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6074 of 2000, Ramesh Kumar son of Sadhu Ram v. State of Haryana and others, 2002 1 SCT 403 and 3349 of 2000 (Rakesh Kumar Sapra son of Kuldeep Kumar v. State of Haryana and others) as in the opinion of this Court these can be disposed of by one judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in both the cases. The facts have been taken from C.W.P. No. 6074 of 2000.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner in this writ petition is that directions be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant District Attorney. It is alleged by the petitioner that 74 posts of Assistant District Attorney were published by the Government of Haryana. Out of it, 43 posts were meant for general category and the rests were for the reserved categories. The Haryana Public Service Commission conducted a screening test for the said posts. The petitioner appeared in the screening test. The result was declared and the name of the petitioner was in the successful list. The petitioner was called for the interview, but when the result was declared, his name did not find mention in the final list which was published in the newspaper. In the said publication of the final result, the petitioner was shown to have been recommended to the State Government for appointment as an additional candidate in the waiting list at Serial No. 3. The petitioner enquired the purpose of additional recommendation from the Commission. It was informed to him that some additional candidates for appointment as per existing rules and regulations have been recommended. The petitioner can be granted appointment in two eventualities - firstly, if any of the recommendee candidate does not join and, secondly, if there had arisen some vacancies after the commencement of the selection process and till the expiry of six months after its completion. All the 74 candidates who were recommended by the Commission joined their duties in various departments within one month from the date of issuance of the appointment letters. In the month of July 1999 the petitioner made inquiries from the office of respondent No. 2 and it was transpired that 30 posts of Assistant District Attorney in different departments have fallen vacant after the start of the selection process. On 7th December, 1999 the petitioner made a detailed representation to the official respondents claiming appointment on the said post relying upon the Government circulars dated 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 and also on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varinder Singh Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1999 2 SLR 191. In the month of March 2000, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 3 who was recommended by the Commission as an additional candidate in Scheduled Caste "A" Category has been given appointment in pursuance of the Government circulars dated 22.3.1957 and 26.5.1972 and also by relying upon the judgment in Varinder Singh Hooda's case . His case is at par with that of respondent No. 3. Since 30 posts had fallen vacant after the start of the selection process, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be appointed against one of the posts falling to the handicapped category. The petitioner should also be treated at par with respondent No. 3. With this background the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions.

(3.) Notice of the Writ Petition was given to the respondents and they filed the reply and denied the allegations. It was submitted by the respondents that the Chief Secretary had modified the policy i.e. instructions dated 28th October, 1993. The State Government has further issued the instructions dated 27.2.1997. According to this letter, appointment out of waiting list is to be made in case the candidate from original list do not join his duty and no other vacancy is to be filled up from the waiting list. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Public Service Commission against the waiting list as additional candidate. Out of 74 candidates recommended by the Haryana Public Service Commission, 44 candidates belonging to general category joined their duties against the advertised posts and no other vacancy was available for any candidate against the advertised posts. Hence the petitioner was not considered for appointment as Assistant District Attorney.