HASHNI KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Hashni Kumar, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the selections made by the Departmental Selection Committee to the posts of Naib Tehsildars Class 'A' under the category of riot/terrorist victims as the same were allegedly made without holding any interview; and also to quash the selections made under the reserved categories which according to the petitioner exceeded 50% of the advertised posts. The petitioner also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the official respondents to select and appoint him to the post of Naib Tehsildar 'A' Class.

(2.) Vide advertisement dated December 21, 1987 (Annexure P-1) 40 posts of Naib Tehsildar 'A' Class were advertised by the Chairman, Departmental Selection Committee, the petitioner was fully eligible and he applied for the afore- mentioned posts under general category; the petitioner appeared in the written examination conducted on October 22, 1989 under Roll No. 31172 and having qualified the same was called for interview; out of the 40 advertised posts, result of 20 posts was declared in May, 1990 and published in the daily newspaper 'The Tribune' (Annexure P-3); The result of another 16 posts was thereafter declared in June, 1991 (Annexure P-4); in this manner, 36 candidates were selected against 40 advertised posts and thus 4 posts still remained vacant, out of which two were meant for the general category candidates; respondent No. 2 selected two candidates bearing Roll Nos. 10412 and 13063 though they were never called for interview. Thus, according to the petitioner, declaration of the result in piecemeal was in a totally arbitrarily and mala fide manner and there was a strong possibility of some extraneous considerations having prevailed upon in making these recruitments. Besides, the number of candidates selected under the different reserved categories having exceeded 50%, the same was illegal too.

(3.) Upon notice, written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. While taking preliminary objection of non-impleading the selected candidates against whom the petitioner has made allegations, it has been averred that the selections were made in a valid manner. A perusal of the written statement reveals that most of the averments are devoted to justify the selection of private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the categories of handicap and terrorist victims.