JITENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the selection and appointment of the private respondents to the post of Computer Operator Constables (Male) in Haryana Police against the B.C (B) Category. Petitioner further raises a prayer for directing the respondents to appoint him on the post in question with all consequential benefits.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Director General of Police, Haryana issued advertisement dated 9.9.2007 inviting applications from eligible male candidates for filling up 485 temporary posts of Computer Operator Constables in the Haryana Police. 38 vacancies were reserved for the B.C. (B) category. The essential minimum qualification was prescribed as class 10+2 pass from the Board of School Education, Haryana or any other recognized Board. It was further stipulated in the advertisement that working knowledge and experience of computer handling will be judged by a test of qualifying nature by the nominated Selection Board. Still further, preference was to be given to candidates having one year or more diploma in computer applications from any institute/work station which is approved by HARTRON, DOEC, NIIT, APTECH or any standard listed company imparting computer training. The selection procedure was also disclosed in the advertisement itself in the following terms:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance upon the information that had been sought under the provisions of the R.T.I Act to assert that the selected candidates/private respondents had submitted computer certificates from fake institutes as also from institutes which were not having the due recognition. Counsel has further argued that the certificates attached by the selected candidates had been issued even after the last date for submission of application forms and as such on such short ground alone the selection process cannot be sustained. It has also been argued that 9 candidates belonging to the General Category have been selected against the reserved B.C. (B) category and such action has worked to the clear prejudice and detriment of the petitioner, whose name appears at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list for such reserved B.C. (B) Category.