MADAN GOPAL MARYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petition No. 6524 of 1992 (Madan Gopal Marya vs. The State of Haryana and others) and Civil Writ petition No. 10773 of 1992 (Nathu Ram vs. The State of Haryana & others) are being disposed of by a common judgment as the proposition of law canvassed in these writ petitions is identical. In order to sort out the controversy, the facts have been taken from CWP No. 6524 of 1992.

(2.) The petitioners in both the writ petitions, were candidates for the post of Assistant Food Supplies Officer advertised by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana. In the merit list of 28 candidates prepared by the Board, the petitioners were placed at Sr. No. 12 and 22 respectively. The Director, Food & Supplies, Haryana, respondent No. 2 issued appointment letters to 11 candidates. In the month of February, 1983, more candidates, who were lower in merit to the petitioners, were given appointments out of the select list. Ramesh Singh, respondent No. 3, who was at serial No. 25 in the merit list and was selected as general category candidate, was accommodated against Ex-Servicemen dependents' category. In the year 1985-86, three more appointments of Assistant Food & Supplies Officers, were made. Narinder Singh, respondent No. 4, who was lower in merit having been placed at Sr. No. 19 of the merit list, was also appointed. This is how the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing the writ petitions. Precisely, the grievance of the petitioner is that they were higher in the merit list prepared by the Subordinate Services Selection Board and despite that they have been discriminated in the matter of appointment. Respondents No. 4 and 5 who were lower in merit have been given appointments. The action of the official respondents is not giving appointments to the petitioners as Assistant Food and Supplies Officer, has been termed as malafide, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Petitioner had filed C.W.P. No. 17847 of 1991 (Madan Gopal Marya vs. State of Haryana) and the same was disposed of by a Division Bench on 3.12.1991 with the direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Though the respondents should have given appointment letter to the petitioner following the ratio of the decision rendered in CWP 3504 of 1988' Azad Singh vs. The State of Haryana and others on 263.1991 but no appointment letter to the petitioner was issued. The counsel contended that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been wrongly shown in the General category, whereas they belonged to the Backward Class. Denial of appointment to the petitioner is violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.