SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of a Peon under the Backward Class -A Category. It has been asserted that the petitioner, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P -1) published in the Indian Express, applied for the post of Peon against the Backward Class -A Category, for which out of the 18 posts, 8 were earmarked. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that the number of vacancies may be increased or decreased on creation or withdrawal of the Courts or otherwise. In the merit list, which was prepared by the respondents, petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 10 under the said category. Krishan Kumar, whose Roll No. was 1112, was placed at Merit No. 3 under the Backward Class -A category but he was not eligible as the certificate of the Backward Class, which was produced by him, was of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The candidates up to Merit No. 9 were thus appointed against the 8 posts advertised for the Backward Class -A Category. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, according to which, on 31.03.2012, there were total 28 vacant posts of Peons in the Sessions Division, Faridabad. 18 posts have been filled up, therefore, there were 10 posts still available, against which the petitioner could be appointed. In the light of this fact, petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents. The District and Sessions Judge, vide letter dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P -4), sought permission to fill up the vacant posts of Peons available on the date of declaration of the result i.e. 03.04.2012. In this letter, it was specifically stated that after the withdrawal of the Court, there are now 7 posts of Peons still lying vacant, out of these, one post fell to the category of Backward Class -A Category. The claim of the petitioner was not considered. In the meanwhile, another letter dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P -5) was addressed by the Sessions Judge, Faridabad to the Registrar of the High Court withdrawing the earlier letter dated 22.05.2012 on the ground that under the Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997, there is no provision for any waiting list for the post of Peons and further in the light of the judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 19046 of 2008 titled as Ashwani Goyal and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Mama and another, decided on 08.02.2010, posts beyond the advertised posts cannot be filled up except in cases where a candidate has not joined the said post and if such a post remained unfilled then the next candidate in order of merit can be offered appointment. With the withdrawal of the earlier letter dated 22.05.2012 (Annexure P -4), right of the petitioner is stated to have been adversely affected leading to the filing of the present writ petition praying for quashing of the letter dated 29.05.2012 (Annexure P -5).

(2.) THE contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner especially when on the date when the result was declared i.e. 03.04.2012, there were 10 vacant posts of Peons available, out of which one fell in the quota of Backward Class -A Category, to which the petitioner belongs, cannot sustain in the light of the specific clause in the advertisement dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P -1) that number of vacancies may increase or decrease on creation or withdrawal of the Courts or otherwise. The claim of the petitioner is based on the judgments passed by the Supreme Court in Prem Singh and others v. Haryana State Electricity Board and others, : (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 319, Suvidya Yadav and others v. State of Haryana and others,, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 269, Sandeep Singh v. State of Haryana and another,, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 549 and a judgment passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 19046 of 2008 titled as Ashwani Goyal and others v. District and Sessions Judge, Mansa and another, decided on 08.02.2010. He, on this basis, contends that the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner cannot sustain and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Peon under the Backward Class -A Category.

(3.) ADMITTED facts are that an advertisement dated 29.09.2011 (Annexure P -1) was issued by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad inviting applications for filling up 18 posts of Peons. Last date for receipt of the applications was 20.10.2011 up to 4 P.M. 8 posts out of these 18 posts of Peons were earmarked for Backward Class -A Category, to which the petitioner belongs. He applied for the post and was placed at Merit No. 10. Krishan Kumar, who was at Merit No. 3 in the Backward Class -A Category, was found to be ineligible on the ground that the Backward Class Certificate produced by him was from the State of Uttar Pradesh. Next candidate in merit, namely, Raj Pal, who was placed at Sr. No. 9, was thus, appointed against the Backward Class -A Category. All 8 posts belonging to the Backward Class -A Category, therefore, stood exhausted. Apart from these categories, as a matter of fact, all 18 posts stood filled up from the respective categories, for which the posts were advertised. None of the advertised posts remained vacant.