USHA DHILLON Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written statement on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, filed today in Court, is taken on record. Through the present writ, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider her candidature under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex. serviceman for the post of Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch), advertised vide advertisement dated 18.09.2014. She also prays for quashing of order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as - the Commission), rejecting the representation of the petitioner, through which she had requested the Commission to do what she is now praying that this Court may direct them to do.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in brief are that through advertisement dated 18.09.2014, applications were invited for 119 posts in the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch). The petitioner, who claims herself to be a dependent of an Ex-serviceman, states that she tried to apply online a number of times before 29.09.2014, but there being an error on the website, she could not apply. Ultimately, on 29.09.2014, she says that she was able to apply online and when it came to selection of category, she had applied under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex-serviceman, but when she took out a print, she was shocked to see that the category against which she had applied was shown as Special Backward Class. It is the case of the petitioner that in this state of shock, on the same day i.e. 29.09.2014, she approached the Commission and apprised them of the above problem. She says that she was told by an official that this was normal and that she may now give an application through a hard copy. As per the case of the petitioner, accordingly, on 01.10.2014, she submitted an application to the Commission requesting them to consider her under the Ex-serviceman category as a dependent of an Ex-serviceman instead of Special Backward Class. This application of hers was duly received by the Commission on 01.10.2014. The petitioner further submits that vide letter dated 21.10.2014, the Commission rejected her request for change of category. It is this letter that the petitioner impugns through the present petition.

(3.) On notice of motion having been issued to the respondents, the Commission has filed a written statement countering the averments of the petitioner, as referred to above. The Commission seeks rejection of the present petition on the ground that the story set out by the petitioner was not possible. It is stated that there was no such computer glitch, as being sought to be projected by the petitioner because had that been so, other candidates would have also encountered a similar problem and would have approached the Commission with grievances similar to the grievance raised by the petitioner. The Commission further submits that since the petitioner had applied under the category of Special Backward Class, she could be considered only under that category and none else.