OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is to the selection and appointment of respondent No.3 on the post of Assistant Town Planner with a further prayer that the petitioner, being next in merit of the Scheduled Caste candidates, should be appointed on the third post of Scheduled Caste which was, due to an error on the part of the Department, not sent for advertisement and instead only two Scheduled Caste posts were advertised. Petitioner, in pursuance to Advertisement No.1/2007 dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P -1) issued by the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana applied for the post of Assistant Town Planner (Group A). 15 posts in total were advertised, out of which 10 were kept for the General Category, 2 were reserved for the Scheduled Caste, 2 for Backward Class and 1 for the Ex -servicemen. Last date for receipt of applications was 05.01.2008. Petitioner was called for interview and after the conduct of the interviews, result was declared on 28.08.2008 (Annexure P -7). One Miss Harpreet Kaur and Shri Des Raj -respondent No.3 were selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Town Planner under the Scheduled Caste category. Harpreet Kaur was given the benefit of the Scheduled Caste despite she belonging to the State of Punjab. Des Raj -respondent No.3 had been allocated 5 marks for experience without any basis as he had only an experience of 3 1/2 years after passing his qualifying examinations and the marks for experience were to be assigned only after the essential qualifications were acquired by a candidate. As per Haryana Government instructions dated 24.01.1991, 3 posts should have been reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates. The said letter clearly laid down the roster points to be filled up for the posts, according to which the 4th, 8th and 14th posts were to be reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste since 15 posts were advertised. As per the said instructions, minimum 3 posts were required to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste candidates. Even if the selection of Des Raj - respondent No.3 is upheld, petitioner would still be entitled to appointment as Harpreet Kaur, who was initially granted the benefit of Scheduled Caste category wrongly, has now been appointed against the general category post as she had obtained higher marks than the general category candidates. Only 4 candidates have participated in the selection process in the Scheduled Caste category and, therefore, the petitioner, being the 4th in the merit list and fulfilling the requisite qualifications, is entitled to be appointed against the post which was required to be reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, but not advertised by the respondents. For the mistake on the part of the Department, petitioner cannot be penalised. Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the writ petition.

(2.) THE stand of the official respondents, on the other hand, is that there was indeed an inadvertent mistake while issuing the advertisement, but since the Selection Committee was duty bound to recommend the candidates against the advertised posts and, thus, only 2 candidates can be appointed against the advertised posts. The process to fill up the 3rd post would require a separate advertisement and this process will be taken care of in the next selection process. It has also been admitted that, in fact, Harpreet Kaur was found to be of Punjab and, therefore, could not be selected against the post reserved for the Scheduled Caste. Since she was found to be eligible for appointment under the general category also, she has been appointed against the said post and the next candidate in the merit list belonging to the Scheduled Caste, namely, Surinder Kumar stands selected and appointed. It has been stated that respondent No.3 -Des Raj obtained 77 marks in total, which included the marks obtained in the qualifying degree, the experience and the assessment for interview. Surinder Kumar got 74 marks and petitioner Om Parkash has 72 marks.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been taken that there is no challenge to the advertisement issued by the respondents and in any case the claim of the petitioner is barred on the ground of delay. If the petitioner had any grievance against the specified number of posts reserved for the Scheduled Caste category, he should have challenged the same when the advertisement was issued in the year 2007. Having participated in the selection process and having failed, he is estopped from raising such a challenge at this belated stage.