SACHIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the impugned order, subject matter of the present appeals, two writ petitions filed by the appellants herein have been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Both the appellants had applied for selection to the post of Labour Inspector in response to Advertisement No.2/2010 dated 14.8.2010 issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'). A total of 22 posts were advertised and 12 out of these belonged to general category. The selection to these posts is governed by the Haryana Labour Department (Group 'C') Service Rules, 1982, which prescribes the following qualifications as eligibility conditions:-

(2.) It is not in dispute that the appellants fulfilled these conditions. However, the Commission had decided to shortlist the candidates for recruitment to the aforesaid posts of Labour Inspector and for this purpose it fixed minimum cut off percentage at 67% in the degree of Bachelor of Arts including Public Administration of a recognised university or its equivalent. This was prescribed vide notice dated 15.3.2012. Since the appellants did not fulfil this benchmark, as they had secured less than 67% marks in the degree of Bachelor of Arts, they filed the writ petitions challenging the validity of the notifications. Their submission was that as they fulfilled the eligibility conditions contained in the recruitment rules, it was incumbent upon the Commission to allow them to appear in the selection process and prescription of minimum cut off percentage of 67% in the degree of Bachelor of Arts, over and above what is prescribed in recruitment rules, was improper, unjustified and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This contention has not been accepted by the learned single Judge, finding no fault with the aforesaid norm fixed by the Commission.

(3.) Submission of learned counsel for the appellants was that as per the rules, those who have specialised in Labour Laws are to be given preference. The appellants have specialisation in Labour Laws, but they are sidelined because of minimum cut off percentage for the General Category prescribed in the notice dated 15.3.2012. It is argued that as a result, a candidate, who was simply a Bachelor of Arts with more than 67% marks is preferred over the candidates like the appellants, who were not only having degree of Bachelor of Arts but even specialisation in Labour Laws.