NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Haryana Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission, issued an advertisement No. 6 dated 20.1.1995 inviting applications for filling up of 200 temporary posts of Lecturers (College Cadre) in various subjects, in the Haryana Education Services (Group-B). Corrigendum to this advertisement was issued, partially modifying the original notification. The petitioner passed his M.A. in English in the year 1988 and M. Phil. in English in the year 1991 from Kurukshetra University. The petitioner belongs to backward class of Haryana, thus, being eligible and qualified, submitted his application through proper channel. This application of the petitioner was accepted and he was called for interview by the Commission. The result of the selection in regard to Lecturer (College Cadre) in English was published on 28.1.1998. Under B.C. Category only three candidates were selected, whereas in furtherance to the orders passed by the High Court in CWP No. 4235 of 1998, the respondents were directed to compile the result for that category and publish the same. On 3.8.1998 the respondents issued a fresh selection list of the B.C. category. As per that list the petitioner figured at Serial No. 8 and another candidate, namely, Somvir figured at Serial No. 9. Somvir was appointed but the petitioner was not given any appointment. The petitioner has been completely ignored for appointment. This action of the respondents was challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No. 3232 of 1999. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents had not disputed that petitioner was qualified and eligible for the post. However, immediately thereafter, on 25.5.2000 the respondents issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was working as Lecturer in English in Government College, Karnal when show cause notice was served upon the petitioner requiring him to reply as to why his services be not terminated as he had obtained 54.5% marks in M.A. English as against 55% marks required for that purpose. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply and stated therein that he had made no misrepresentation and had clearly stated in his form that he had obtained 872 marks out of 1600 marks. The petitioner also stated that he was qualified in terms of the prescribed qualifications and as such no action need to taken against him. The recommendation of the Commission, in respect of the petitioner sent to the Government, was withdrawn vide letter dated 22.5.2000.

(2.) After receipt of notice, written statement was filed by the respondent- Commission, which was adopted by the State of Haryana. It is stated therein that the petitioner has no right to invoke the writ jurisdiction as he had misrepresented in his form the marks percentage to be 55% though he had stated total marks obtained as 872 marks out of 1600. As the form had indicated 55% marks, his application was considered and, therefore, the petitioner was called for interview, but lateron while checking the records of the petitioner upon the result received from the College, it was found that the petitioner was not eligible and could not have been interviewed by the respondents. Thus, the show cause notice was issued accordingly.

(3.) In the light of the above facts now we shall refer to the regulations/clauses in the advertisement describing essential qualifications for appointment to such post. There is no dispute to the fact that the posts in question are governed by the Haryana Education Service Group-B Rules. The relevant clause of the advertisement reads as under :-