NIWAS SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Niwas Sharma through present petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks writ in the nature of mandamus directing I respondent No. 1 to appoint him against the vacant post of Principal (H.E.S.-II) meant for direct recruitment quote in view of the Government Policy dated may 26, 1972 (Annexure P-4). The relief asked for in the writ stems from the facts which meed to be noticed, although briefly.

(2.) Petitioner is serving as head Master in Government High School of District Rohtak. It is stated that he possesses requisite qualifications and experience for appointment to the post of Principal in government Senior Secondary School of Haryana Being, thus, eligible, he qualified the test for the said post but was not considered for regular appointment. On the requisition made by the Government, the Haryana Public Service Commission (here-in-after referred to as the Commission) vide advertisement dated February 3,1986 advertised 17 posts of Principals, vide separate requisition dated September 22,1986, demand of five additional vacancies of Principals was made. Out of total 22 vacancies that thus became available, 14 seats were reserved for general category, 4 for scheduled category, 3 for backward class category and 1 for ex-serviceman category. Petitioner applied and was interviewed by the Commission and his name was recommended for regular, appointment to the post of Principal, HES Class-II (Men Branch). Order of selection has been placed on records as Annexure P-l. The Commission recommended 26 candidates for appointment to the posts of Principal in view of vacancies in existence in the year 1987. Out of 26 recommendees, 25 candidates were appointed and it is only the petitioner who was left out. it is pleaded that government had sent requisition of eight posts reserved for scheduled caste, Backward Classes and ex-servicemen categories whereas respondents appointed one more candidate of backward Class category in excess of the quota of total 26 recommendees. Aggrieved, petitioner submitted representation to the departmental authorities and to various other authorities but when his representation brought tangible result, he came to this Court asking for the relief as indicated in the earlier part of the judgment.

(3.) With a view to advance the case of petitioner, it has been further pleaded that six or seven vacancies belonging to direct quota of general category are still lying vacant and instead of appointing the petitioner against the available vacancies meant for direct recruitment, respondent-State in an illegal and arbitrary manner, promoted eight male and five female Headmasters Headmistresses to HES-II vide order dated October 27,1987. It has been mentioned in the order of their promotion that the persons at serial Nos. 5,6,7,8,12 and 13 were being promoted against the posts of direct recruitment quota and would be reverted as soon as the recommendees from the Commission were available, it is further, pleaded that six posts, against which adhoc promotions were made on October 27,1987 were actually lying vacant before the said date. The right full claim of petitioner was ignored and just a day before the expiry of six months, for (sic) period any vacancies that were to fall vacant, were to be filed in out of the recommendees as per Government instructions measure P-4, Six persons were promoted In the manner aforesaid, right of petitioner was defeated. The Government instructions dated May 26, 1972, inter-alia, require that at the time of making recommendations to the concerned department, the Commission would recommend five names in addition to the number of vacancies intimated by the department and if additional vacancies intimated by the department and if additional vacancies occurred in that department during a period of six months of the receipt of recommendations, such vacancies would be filled in from amongst the said five additional candidates recommended by the Commission. In the present case the Commission had recommended three additional candidates from general category i.e. instead of 14,17 were recommended. Two candidates from the waiting list have already been appointed and one additional candidate recommended by the Commission even from the reserved category, has also been appointed, it is only the petitioner, who, too is in the waiting list of general category, has been ignored.