SURAJ KIRAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing condition No. 3, which has been imposed in the advertisement (Annexure P-3), vide which applications were invited for the post of Animal Attendant (Class IV). Petitioners are also impugning the rejection of the candidature of petitioners No. 1 and 2 by the respondents on the ground that they do not have the requisite training certificate/valid training certificate from Government Institution.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that the imposition of such a condition by the respondents in the advertisement is unreasonable and unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners have been denied the right to participate in the selection process. His further contention is that the institution, from where the petitioners have obtained the training on Animal Husbandry and Dairying is from HTS IGNOU Community College-petitioner No. 3, which certificate has been conferred upon the petitioners by IGNOU and, therefore, rejection of the candidature of the petitioners is unjustified. His further contention is that petitioner No. 3 has submitted a representation for acceptance of the training programme of petitioner No. 3 vide communication dated 17.02.2012 but the same has not yet been responded to by the respondents. His further contention is that similarly placed candidates have filed civil suit before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hisar on 08.06.2012 and in response thereto, reply has been filed by the respondent-department contending that not only the Training in Dairying or Poultry or Piggery imparted by Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department has been accepted but training from autonomous bodies such as Universities in the State of Haryana has also been accepted i.e. Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and its branches. He, on this basis, contends that the respondents themselves are not sticking to condition No. 3 in the advertisement, therefore, the rejection of the candidature of petitioners No. 1 and 2 is not sustainable.

(3.) A perusal of condition No. 3 would show that the appointing authority has taken a conscious decision to call for the applications where training has been taken from the specified institutions. The contention of the petitioners that respondents are not sticking to the said clause and are permitting candidates, who have obtained training from Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and its training centres, cannot be faulted with for the reason that these are institutions which are duly recognized by the Veterinary Council of India which fact has not been disputed by the counsel for the petitioners during the course of hearing.