STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Vs. GAJRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 5.5.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that one of the 13 posts earmarked for ex-servicemen in the cadre of Lecturers in Hindi could not be consumed on account of the fact that one Vinod Kumar son of Bansi Dhar who was offered appointment vide letter dated 6.7.2009 declined to join. The writ petitioner- respondent also belonged to ex-servicemen category and his claim was that he was entitled to be considered against a vacant post of Lecturer in Hindi which was part of advertisement dated 20.7.2006. The learned Single Judge after adverting to the merits, disposed of the writ petition by issuing the following directions.

(2.) We have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General at some length. According to him in the absence of any waiting list, no directions could be issued to appoint anyone in accordance with the merit.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel, we are of the view that the aforesaid contention which has again been raised before us was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It is well settled that once a post has not been consumed and a meritorious candidate in the merit list is available then the vacancy could be filled in by inviting next person in merit. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge are consistent with the principles of equality laid down in Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The post of Lecturer in Hindi has to be offered to the most meritorious candidate who may be next in the merit after Vinod Kumar under the exserviceman category. Therefore, no exception is provided to interfere in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is wholly without merit and does not warrant admission. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.