GEETA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 17.05.2011, rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the appellant did not secure adequate marks to qualify for appointment to the post of Drug Control Officers in Health Department, Haryana. For filling up four posts, an advertisement was issued on 14.03.2008. A selection committee was constituted by Haryana Staff Selection Commission respondent No.2 (for brevity 'HSSC'), for conducting the interview on 27.11.2008. There were some complaints with regard to fake experience certificate which led to holding of an inquiry by the Health Department. Out of selected candidates except one candidate, all were found to have a fake experience certificate. The appellant's brother obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the RTI Act') showing that only one of the four selected candidates had joined duty and no waiting list was prepared or received by the Health Department along with the list of selected candidates. It was found by the appellant on inquiry that first selected candidate had obtained 52.01 marks in aggregate whereas the last selected candidate had obtained 41.47 marks. No information with regard to marks obtained by other candidates was furnished as they were not selected.

(2.) In Nov., 2009, another advertisement was issued by HSSC for filling up three posts of Drug Control Officer on temporary basis. The appellant filed a petition with a prayer that she was entitled to be appointed because in the earlier selection, three persons were found to be ineligible and were therefore, not appointed. She claimed that she was available for appointment. In the written statement filed by HSSC, it was conceded that the candidates selected at serial Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were not given appointment letters in view of the report submitted by the inquiry committee for the reasons that those persons had produced bogus experience certificate. As against the last selected candidate, who secured 44.66 marks, the appellant had obtained 41.44 marks. There was no provision for preparing waiting list for Group-B post and reliance was placed on a letter dated 01.07.2008 (R-2/1). Accordingly, no one was shown in the waiting list.

(3.) The learned Single Judge rejected the prayer made by the appellant by observing that once a select list was prepared without any waiting list, it would not be fair to appoint a person who might be next in order of merit. The selected candidates could not be appointed on the ground that they had submitted bogus certificates of experience and the action was obviously justified because the selection was made on the basis of merit and the documentation were checked subsequent to selection. The learned Single Judge expressed some doubts that it was not clear from the pleading that the appellant was in fact, next in order of merit and could be given appointment on that basis.