VICTOR ROBINSON Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 4298 of 2015

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that the rejection of his claim vide the impugned order being based upon Article 316(1) of the Constitution of India is unsustainable as the respondents have placed reliance upon the proviso of the said Article, which deals with one-half members to be officials of the Commission whereas the petitioner had applied under the non-official category. The representation has been rejected along with the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the ground that he had not held the office of the Government for at least 10 years.

(3.) This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as in the impugned order, it is mere reproduction of Article 316(1) of the Constitution. The reason for non-acceptance of the claim of the petitioner, as per his application initially submitted, was that the recommendation was not made by the competent authority i.e. The Chief Minister of Haryana. This fact is apparent from the order, which has been passed, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-