HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to 'KHATI' Community, which has been declared as a Backward Class by the State of Haryana. He obtained the degree of M.A. in Geography from the Panjab University in the year 1987. While he was doing M. Phil course, he, in response to an advertisement of the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') applied for the post of Lecturer (College Cadre) in H.E.S. (Group 'B') in the subject of Geography, for which the last date for submitting the applications was 15th Dec., 1988. As per the advertisement, out of 31 posts, 3 were reserved for the candidates belonging to the Backward Classes. The petitioner was not selected for the post he applied for, which led him to file the present writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioner is that according to the Haryana Government instructions, dated 18th Sept., 1979 (Annexure P-4), 10% of the posts to which the recruitment is to be made are to be reserved for the members belonging to Backward Classes. According to these instructions, in a block of 100 vacancies in a cadre, the vacancies at Serial Nos. 10, 16, 22, 32, 46, 56, 70, 76, 86 and 96 are to be reserved for the members of the Backward Classes. According to the averments made in the petition, 47 candidates were recommended by the Commission for the appointment to the posts in the subject of Geography against the 31 posts which were advertised. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, out of 47 posts, 5 posts were to be reserved for the candidates belonging to the Backward Classes and since the Commission had only recommended 3 candidates from that category, the petitioner was entitled to be recommended/appointed to the post in question against the reserve category. It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of interview, the petitioner had obtained the qualification of M. Phil. which should have been taken into consideration by the respondent-Commission.

(3.) In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per the written statement, the petitioner was not selected due to his poor performance at the time of interview and there was no obligation on the part of the Commission to recommend the name of any unsuitable candidate simply because he belongs to a Backward Class. It has also been averred in the written statement that more names were recommended by the Commission in view of the State Government's instructions, dated 20th May, 1972 and 8th September, 1972. As far as the question of taking into consideration the M.Phil. qualification of the petitioner at the time of interview is concerned, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the qualifications which are to be taken into consideration are those which a candidate has upto the last date of the submission of the application. The petitioner did not have M. Phil. qualification upto that date.