PARHLAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed Social Study Master on 1.1.1991 through Employment Exchange. He was subsequently made regular. The petitioner had been appointed on the aforesaid post on the basis of reservation made in favour of the dependent of ex-serviceman. Subsequently, the respondents advertised 140 plots of Headmaster/ Headmistresses on 14.12.2001. The petitioner appeared in the written test. On the basis of the result in the test he was called for interview. However, when the result of successful candidates was released, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of the successful candidates. The father of the petitioner had been killed in the action during the Indo-Pak War in 1965. Under the instructions dated 6.3.1992, the claim of the petitioner has been considered under the general category. The petitioner claims that he was entitled to be considered in the category of dependents and wards of ex-serviceman. In the advertisement, it was provided that the candidates must have eight years experience of teaching in Government/recognised Senior Secondary School/High School/Middle School/master in Teachers Training Institute. Since the petitioner possesses the requisite eight years experience he was entitled to be considered under the post reserved for the category of dependent of ex- serviceman. He submits that the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that he was already gainfully employed. Since eight years experience was required as essential qualification the candidate would only be gainfully employed. He, therefore, submits the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is arbitrary.

(2.) We are unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel. The candidate who is already gainfully employed cannot possibly fall under the definition of "dependent of an ex-serviceman". For this view of ours, we find support from the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Public Service Commission v. Harinder Singh and another, 1999 2 SCT 298 In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows :-