JAI SHREE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Jai Shree applied for the post of Junior Librarian in response to advertisement issued for filling 18 posts. Last date for receipt of applications was Aug. 7, 1988. Out of 18 posts, 7 were for general category. 4 for Scheduled Castes, 1 for Backward Classes and 6 for Ex-servicemen and dependents of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner made a claim for one of the posts meant for Ex-servicemen category. Due process of selection was completed. In 1989 she married. In March, 1992, vide order Annexure P-2 she was asked to submit three forms for character verification. The letter was complied with. However appointment letter was not issued. Thus, she has approached this Court in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution, for a mandamus to the respondents to appoint her on the post. It was further asserted that out of general category, the selectees were less than the number of posts advertised and they were thus selected without any interview. This was further stated that if the petitioner was not found eligible for Ex-servicemen category post, she should be allowed one of the posts of the general category on the basic of general merit.

(2.) On notice of motion having been issued, the writ petition has been contended by the State. Some preliminary objections have been taken, inter alia that the writ petition is delayed as the selection took place about two years ago. No post of junior Librarian for direct quota was lying vacant. Since the petitioner had married, she was not eligible for Ex-servicemen (dependents of Ex-Servicemen) category and hence she could not be offered the post under the reserve category.

(3.) The short question that arises in this case is of discrimination meted out to the petitioner vis-a-vis other candidates competing for the posts meant for ex-servicemen (dependents of Ex-Servicemen) category. As already stated above, the last date for receipt of application was Aug. 8,1988. The petitioner being a dependent of an Ex-serviceman was eligible to apply for the post. According to her, if she had remarried subsequently, that would not debar here for appointment to the aforesaid post. There is merit in this contention. There are no rules on the subject with regard to recruitment to the service of Junior Labrarians. Thus, we have to bank upon the eligibility conditions, which were advertised. Annexure P-l gives terms and conditions of advertisement. It was published in the newspaper on July 7, 1988. No condition was mentioned in this advertisement to judge as to when eligibility of the candidates was to be determined, i.e. at the time of selection or at the time of appointment. It is in this context that it is held that the date of receipt of applications would be the relevant date for considering eligibility of the candidates. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma and another Vs. Chander Shekhar and another, 1993(3) Recent Services Judgments, 561 had the occasion to observe on the subject. On the date of receipt of applications candidates had not obtained the educational qualifications. However, by the date of interview they had obtained the same and were selected. The Supreme Court ultimately held their appointment as valid. The ratio of the aforesaid decision, relied upon by the State, cannot be applied to the case in hand. From the material placed on the record, it is not clear as to when the petitioner married, either before or after her selection. Furthermore the position in the present case is entirely different. Present is not a case of acquiring or fulfilling eligibility criterian before the date of selection and to sustain the selection on that basis. The question for consideration is that by marrying the petitioner losses eligibility for the post, having ceased to be dependent of an ex-servicemen? The simple answer would be in the negative. The purpose of reserving certain posts for specified category as in this case to help the ex-servicemen and their dependents in the matter of civil services. By denying this benefit of technical grounds would be to frustrate the object. If the petitioner had remarried a day after joining the post, her marriage would not have been disqualification to remove her from the service, when the petitioner was fulfilling the eligibility conditions at the time of applying for the post, she would rank equal with such like other candidates fulfilling eligibility conditions for such a category and subsequently there cannot be any discrimination among them in the matter of selection.