PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a reserved category candidate who offered his candidature under public advertisement issued on 01.11.2011 calling applications for filling up the post of Sub Divisional Officers, Haryana Veterinary Service, Class-I in the Animal Husbandry & Dairying Department, Haryana. Inter alia three posts were advertised for the reserved category of Scheduled Castes of Haryana. The qualifications for the post are contained in the advertisement. The petitioner's candidature was rejected on 11.07.2012 (P-5) by the respondent Haryana Public Service Commission, for the reason that he did not have the experience as per the advertisement.

(2.) The essential qualifications and experience advertised were as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner is post graduate. He holds the Masters degree in Veterinary Science and claims that he had the requisite experience of five years in the requisite field earned from the GB Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand. He claims over seven years of experience to his credit. As a Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Veterinary Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Sciences, GBPUA&T, Pant Nagar of ten months duration. He worked as a Technical Officer (Farm Sector) in State Bank of India, Panchkula Branch from 22.11.2004 to 29.03.2007 and four years, eight months and one day thereafter as Veterinary Surgeon in FCPS, AH&D, Chandigarh serving on regular basis from 30.03.2007 till date. He has attached his experience certificates with the petition. He admits in para. 5 of the writ petition that he applied through the proper channel of his employer for the advertised post and received the rejection letter on 11.07.2012. He can be seen to be aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2012, the date when the cause of action first accrued in his favour. He submits that he filed objections against the rejection of his candidature on 14.07.2012 explaining that he was eligible in terms of requisite experience in the relevant field as prescribed. The objections were again rejected by an order dated 25.07.2012. The second cause of action can be said to have accrued on 25.07.2012. He then made another representation to the Commission on 15.11.2012 (P-8). He sat back and filed another representation on 20.03.2013 reiterating his earlier stand.