SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The candidature of the petitioners has been ruled out of consideration through the process of shortlisting of candidates against 150 posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services to be filled through an examination conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission under Advertisement No.5 of 2011. The petitioners applied for the post and appeared in the preliminary examination held by the Commission on 25.3.2012. The result of the examination was declared on 4.5.2012. As per the aforesaid advertisement, 99 posts are reserved for general, 29 for SC, 14 for BC, 8 for ESM and 1 for the physically handicapped category respectively.

(2.) The petitioners belong to the reserved category of either scheduled caste, backward class or ex-serviceman which represent both vertical and horizontal reservation.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that the result has been declared category wise and the reserved category candidates who have secured more marks in the last open merit candidate are restricted inter se to their own categories. The grievance has been raised in the background of the preliminary examination. The final examination is yet to be held. The petitioners unable to secure justice from the respondents, and feeling aggrieved, approached this Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.24652 of 2012. It was their case in the earlier litigation that while preparing the result of the preliminary examination, the Commission has not taken into consideration the fact that those candidates who belonged to reserved category and secured marks higher than general category candidates have been excluded from the reserved category and only thereafter, a separate list for reserved category candidates has to be prepared of the remaining number. This action of the Commission was castigated as bad and not in accordance with the law laid down by the division bench of this Court in CWP No.12275 of 2007; Neelam Rani v. State of Punjab and others decided on 8.1.2010 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.976 of 2009, Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Tinu) and others, 2009 4 SCC 1 decided on 13.2.2009. Since there was no final opinion expressed by the Commission, this Court vide order dated 12.12.2012 directed the Commission to decide the representation of the petitioners. In compliance of the direction of this Court, the impugned order dated 8.2.2013 has been passed by the Commission. Their claim has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the rule of reservation whether vertical or horizontal is to be operated only at the stage of final selection which is yet to happen. The reason given in the impugned order is that the preliminary examination was only meant for short listing candidates category wise for the main written examination to be held subsequently. The process of shortlisting was adopted because of the unmanageably large number of applications received.