TRIVENI SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was an applicant for the post of Assistant Lineman, has approached this court impugning the communication dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P-3), vide which his candidature was rejected on the ground that he applied in the category of the post, for which no advertisement had been issued.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response to the advertisement issued on 7.10.2007 by Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short, 'the Commission') for the post of Assistant Lineman, the petitioner applied. All the posts were meant for different reserved categories including Ex-serviceman. He was fully qualified for the post in terms of the qualifications and experience required. Along with the application, the petitioner had annexed the certificate dated 11.4.2007 (Annexure P-2) showing him to be dependent of Ex-serviceman, which was valid upto 11.4.2008. The petitioner received a communication on 20.3.2009 rejecting his candidature on the ground that he applied in the category, for which advertisement had not been issued, as the posts were meant only for ESM/OSP candidates as per the advertisement. However, the petitioner was given opportunity to attend the office of the Commission on 1.4.2009 along with all the relevant documents in support of his claim.

(3.) The contention is that in response to the aforesaid letter issued, the petitioner attended the office of the Commission on 1.4.2009 and produced all the relevant documents including the latest certificate of his being dependent of Ex-serviceman, which was renewed and valid upto 11.4.2009, but still when the result was declared on 18.4.2010, out of 21 posts advertised in the category of Ex-serviceman (General), only 15 candidates were selected and 6 posts remained vacant. After declaration of the result, the petitioner enquired as to whether any person, who was dependent of Ex-serviceman, has been selected or not. In response to the query raised by the petitioner, respondent No. 3 informed that three persons in the category of Ex-serviceman (General) have been selected, who were dependents of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner also being in the same category and was eligible in terms of the instructions appended with the advertisement, was entitled to be selected, but his candidature has been wrongly rejected.