VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Dr. Vijay Singh has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the orders dated December 29, 1999 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the claim made by him for appointment to the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer has been declined by rejecting his representation.

(2.) Brief facts may be noticed as follows :

(3.) The petitioner passed his B.A.M.S. examination from Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra in June 1995. On July 12, 1996, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised seven posts in the backlog of reserved category and the interview for the said posts were held with effect from July 12, 1996. It is stated in the petition that out of the seven posts, only 4 posts were filled up due to non-availability of candidates. It is further stated in the petition that on January 10, 1997, the Haryana Public Service Commission again issued an advertisement (appended as Annexure P-4 with the petition) wherein three posts of Ayurvedic Medical/Officers were advertised. It is stated that the petitioner also applied in response to the advertisement but was not issued an interview letter but one Shiv Shanker Chaudhary, who belonged to Block 'B' of Scheduled Castes category was selected and appointed. Subsequently, on April 7, 1998, the petitioner alongwith other candidates was called for interview on April 21, 1998. As a result of the aforesaid interview, one Dr. Kulwant Singh, who belonged to Block 'A' of Scheduled Castes category was appointed but against the remaining posts, only respondents No. 3 and 4 were selected and were allowed to join on the posts with effect from August 1, 1998. The petitioner has stated that since as per the instructions dated November 9, 1994, 50% vacancies are to be filled from Block 'A' and 50% from Block 'B' of the Scheduled Castes category and out of seven vacancies, four came to the share of the petitioner's category, therefore, the selection in which the petitioner participated there were three vacancies and out of those three, two were required to be given to the petitioner's category. Since only two posts were given to Block 'A' while appointing Dr. Om Pal Singh and Dr. Kulwant Singh, therefore, it is stated that respondents No. 3 and 4 could not be appointed against the posts, which were meant for the category of the petitioner i.e. Block 'A'.