JATINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned action/information dated 12.01.2012 (Annexure P -13), whereby, the application form of the petitioner has been considered under general category whereas he applied under Ex -servicemen category. An advertisement for filling up various posts of Lecturers (College Cadre) in various subjects in Haryana Education Department was issued. Petitioner being Dependent of Ex -serviceman applied under the Ex -servicemen category as it was clearly mentioned in the guidelines that in case, suitable ex -serviceman is not available, then Dependent of Ex -serviceman will be considered against the posts reserved for Ex -servicemen. After submission of the application, an admit card was sent to the petitioner under dependent of Ex -servicemen category intimating therein the details regarding the conduct of the examination. Petitioner being eligible for the post passed eligibility test in accordance with the UGC norms. Three candidates, who were higher in merit to the petitioner were not found to be eligible as they did not fulfill the essential qualifications prescribed by UGC. The petitioner made a representation on 29.10.2011 to the respondent -Commission stating that he was the only eligible candidate for the post as he had obtained 44 marks, but as there being no column for Dependent of Ex -serviceman in the OMR sheet, his case was not considered under the said category. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under RTI and asked regarding the status of his representation, whereby, he was informed that the same is under consideration. A letter was also sent to the petitioner stating therein that he had applied under Dependent of Ex -serviceman Category whereas as he was already working as a Guest Lecturer and drawing salary of Rs. 13,500/ -, therefore, he was considered under General Category. His case was rejected on the basis of lower merit in General Category. Consequent thereupon, the petitioner made various representations but still no action was taken.

(2.) Written statements on behalf of respondent No. 1 -State as well as respondent No. 2 -Haryana Public Service Commission are already on record.

(3.) Mr. H.N. Mehtani, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 submits that the petitioner cannot be considered as dependent of Ex -serviceman in spite of the fact that he has applied under the category of Dependent of Ex -serviceman. On scrutiny of application form, it was found that he was not dependent of Ex -serviceman and accordingly, he was considered under General Category. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 further submits that it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner himself in the application form that he was employed as Lecturer in the subject of History School Cadre and was getting salary of Rs. 13,500/ - per month. A certificate of his employment was also attached with the application form. Keeping in view the salary of the petitioner, he was not considered as dependent of Ex -serviceman. The cut off marks of the last candidate of General Category was 58 and the petitioner has secured only 44 marks in the screening test and as such, he was not considered eligible and was not called for interview. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 also submits that even cut off marks for calling Ex -serviceman candidate for interview was fixed as 47 and the petitioner has secured 44 marks in the screening test. Even in the category of dependent of Ex -serviceman, he was not found to be eligible and, therefore, was not called for interview. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 has relied upon judgment of this Court in Parhlad Singh v/s. State of Haryana and others,, 2005(4) RSJ 120.