SURINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) In the year 1996, Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") advertised two posts of Labour-cum- Conciliation Officer in the Department of Labour and Employment, Haryana. The selection and appointments were to be made according to Haryana Labour Department Service Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1987 Rules"). The petitioner fulfilled the necessary qualifications and was also otherwise eligible for selection and appointment. He duly applied for the post and participated in the selection process. He was called for interview on 19.8.1998. On 16.3.1998. On 16.3.1999 the selection list was published, in which the name of the petitioner did not appear. The petitioner, however, noticed that although only two posts had been advertised, the names of four persons appeared in the select list. Two were kept in the waiting list and two were given appointments. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were in the waiting list. Although respondent No. 4 and 5 were given appointments within a year of this selection, respondent No. 6 and 7 have been given appointments, after a gap of 1-1/2 years on 10.9.2000. The petitioner submits that even if there was a select list, the same would be valid only for one year from the date of selection. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, therefore, could not have been given appointments. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents, the petitioner filed CWP No. 3618 of 2001 which was withdrawn to enable the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents. The petitioner duly submitted a representation before the respondents. The petitioner duly submitted a representation in May, 2001, but the respondents still did not take any action, and therefore, he filed CWP No. 441 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner. The respondents have rejected the representation of the petitioner by order dated 26.6.2002. The petitioner had also submitted a representation to the Commission which has also been rejected by order dated 27.5.2002. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders (Annexure P-6 and P-7). The petitioner also seeks the quashing of selection and appointments of respondent No. 4 to 7.

(3.) All the respondents have filed separate written statements. The petitioner has also filed a replication to the reply filed by respondent No. 3- Commission. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner is estopped from filing the present writ petition by his own act, conduct and acquiescence. The petitioner having participated in the selection process and having never raised any objection to the criteria of selection adopted by the Commission, cannot now be permitted to challenge the same.