BHUPENDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper -book.

(2.) MR . Malik submits that 67% of the posts of Assistant Food and Supplies Officers are to be filled up by promotion. 33% posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. The cadre strength of Assistant Food and Supplies Officers is 83. Share of direct recruit comes to 27 posts, whereas 56 posts are to be filled up by promotion. The quota of promotees has already been filled up. 14 candidates have been appointed by direct recruitment on regular basis. Thus 13 posts are lying vacant which are meant for direct recruits. An advertisement was issued on 6.7.2003 advertising 10 posts of A.F.S.O. The petitioner appeared in the written test and has been declared successful. On 16.12.2004, interviews were held. However, the result could not be declared as the Election Model Code of Conduct had come into effect. After the elections were over, on 7.3.2005, a general order has been issued by the Haryana Government in which it has been decided that the requisitions sent to Haryana Public Service Commission/Haryana Staff Selection Commission for filling up various categories of posts may be withdrawn. Consequently, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission has not declared the results. According to the learned counsel, the action of the respondents is arbitrary. It violates Rule 9(1)(c) of the Haryana Food and Supplies Department Sub -Offices (Group -C) Service Rules, 1982. According to Mr. Malik, the petitioner is not only entitled to the declaration of the result, but is also entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner, on the basis of the result which has wrongly not been declared by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. In support of the submission, learned counsel relies on a number of judgments which are as under: -