SHAKTI RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the appointment of respondent No.3 to the post of Junior Draftsman in the Department of Town & Country Planning, Government of Haryana. He also seeks recommendation of his name for the said post as also an inquiry into the process of appointment of respondent No.3.

(2.) Vide advertisement dtd. 1/12/2015 (Annexure P-1), online applications were invited by respondent No.2 i.e. Haryana Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to different posts. There were 50 categories under which different posts were advertised in the State of Haryana. Category No.8 pertained to 10 posts of junior draftsman from different categories viz. general, SC, BCA etc. and included two posts of junior draftsman for the Scheduled Castes category. These posts are the subject matter of the present petition. The petitioner applied under the Scheduled Castes category for the post of junior draftsman by way of an online application (Annexure P-2). Written examination was conducted on 18/5/2017 in which the petitioner duly appeared and succeeded vide result dtd. 10/8/2017 (Annexure P-3). Initially four candidates were called for interview vide notice dtd. 29/12/2017 (Annexure P-4), being twice the number of vacancies advertized for the posts of junior draftsman. The cut of marks were indicated as 94 in the said notice. Subsequently, two more persons including the petitioner were called for interview telephonically and thereafter the result was declared on 15/5/2018 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner did not succeed but on a perusal of the result he found that two candidates including respondent No.3 were amongst the initial four candidates called for interview despite obtaining 94 marks in the written examination whereas the petitioner had obtained 98 marks in the written examination. The petitioner alleges that the whole exercise was carried out by the respondents with a view to illegally select and appoint respondent No.3 despite the fact that she had got lower marks in the written examination than the petitioner and was not eligible to be called for the interview.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. A short reply has been filed by respondent No.1 stating that appointment letters had been issued by respondent No.1 on the basis of the recommendations made by respondent No.2 and, therefore, it had no role to play in the matter.