JATINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions are being decided by a common order because challenge to the eligibility conditions incorporated in the advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission on 17.9.1994 is common in all the petitions.

(2.) For the purpose of this decision, it will be sufficient to make a brief reference to the facts of some of the petitions, first of them being Civil Writ Petition No. 14574 of 1994 (Jatinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and another) . Petitioner Jatinder Kumar is a practising Advocate enrolled on the rolls of the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council. He passed Bachelor of Laws (Professional) examination from the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, in the year 1984 and got himself enrolled with the Bar Council in the same year. He commenced his practice as an Advocate in the year 1985 at Kurukshetra. By 1993, he had completed about 8 years of practice and as on date he has completed 9 years of practice. In response to advertisement No.2 issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission by which 32 vacancies in Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) had been notified, the petitioner submitted his application form before the last date fixed in the advertisement as 31.5.1993. He fulfilled all the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the advertisement - one of which was that a candidate must be below 35 years of age as on 1.1.1993. According to the petitioner, he had not attained the age of even 34 years as on 1.1.1993 and was below 35 years as on 31.5.1993. The Haryana Public Service Commission did not conduct the examination in response to the advertisement No.2 of 1993. Instead it has issued a fresh advertisement dated 17.9.1994 which amongst other things contains a condition that a candidate should not be more than 35 years of age as on 17.10.1994. Petitioner once again applied in response to the advertisement dated 17.9.1994 (Annexure P-5) but his candidature has not been entertained by the Commission on the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit of 35 years. Petitioners case is that he had acquired a right to be considered for selection to the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) on the basis of the conditions of eligibility specified in the advertisement (Annexure P-4) and he cannot be deprived of this eligibility by the respondents merely because they have chosen to issue the fresh advertisement dated 17.9.1994 in the purported compliance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association Vs. Union 'of India, 1993(6) SLR 37 . The petitioner has made a specific assertion that 49 vacancies which have been notified vide Annexure P-5 include those 32 vacancies which had been notified vide Annexure P-4 and, therefore, the right which had come to vest in the petitioner in regard to the conditions of eligibility cannot be taken away. His further plea is that the amendment made in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules vide notification No.G.S.R.35/Const./Arts.234 and 309/Amd.(l) 94 dated 4.5.1994, which has been published in the Haryana Government Gazette (Extraordinary; dated 4.5.1994 is not retrospective so as to be applied to the selection initiated vide advertisement (Annexure P-4) and, therefore the petitioner, who fulfilled the conditions of eligibility specified in the advertisement (Annexure P-4) and who had acquired a right to be considered on the basis of that eligibility, cannot be deprived of his right to be considered on the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by respondent Nos. l and 2. In its reply, respondent No.l has admitted that the Commission had issued advertisement No.2 on 1.5.1993 inviting applications for 32 vacancies in Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) and closing date for the receipt of the application was 31.5.1993. The case set up by respondent No.l is that vide its judgment dated 24.8.1993 in All India Judges Associations case (supra), the Supreme Court had directed the State to prescribe a minimum of three years practice as lawyer as an essential qualification for appointment to the judicial service at the lowest rung and in order to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court, necessary amendments were made in the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) in consultation with the Punjab and Haryana High Court. After detailed discussions, it was decided that the maximum age of the candidate should be kept as 35 years (General Category) and 40 years (Reserved Categories) and the minimum age was decided to be raised from 21 to 24 years to be calculated on the last date of submission of the application-forms. The amendment was given effect from 24.8.1993. The competitive examination envisaged in advertisement No.2 could not be held in view of the decision of the Supreme Court. On 25.5.1994, the Government wrote letter No.25/3/90-3 G.S.I. to the Commission to start the process of recruitment to Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) afresh in the light of the amendment made in the Rules vide Annexure R-l. Respondent No.l has justified the amendment by pleading that requirement of three years practice at the Bar had to be prescribed in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the amendment made in the Rules does not suffer from vice of arbitrariness. In its separate reply, the respondent-Commission has pleaded that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the amendment made in the Rules vide notification dated 4.5.1994, the Government of Haryana withdrew the requisition sent to the Commission. Consequently, the Commission issued order dated 29.6.1994 cancelling the advertisement issued on 1.5.1993 and at the same time directed the refund of the application fees to all the candidates. After cancellation of the earlier advertisement, new advertisement has been issued by it on 17.9.1994. Respondent- Commission has pleaded that no right accrued in favour ox the applicants who had submitted their applications in response to the advertisement No.2 of 1993 and the Commission was duty bound to act in accordance with the amendment made in the Rules. Commission has further pleaded that the petitioner does not fulfil the conditions of eligibility specified in advertisement dated 17.9.1994 and, therefore, he cannot make any grievance regarding the recruitment being undertaken by the Commission in response to the advertisement dated 17.9.1994.