BAJRANG DASS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Sic) question involved in this writ petition is whether the petitioners have any legal right to be appointed as Peons in the service of the Government on the basis of their selection and whether respondent No.2 has denied appointment to the petitioners on a valid ground.

(2.) The Director, Technical Education, Haryana, sent a requisition to the Employment Exchanges in the State of Haryana, to send the names of eligible candidates for the posts of Peons (3 belonging to the general category and 1 belonging to the Scheduled Castes). The candidates whose names were sponsored by the Employment Exchanges were interviewed by the Director, Technical Education on 30.3.1994. On the basis of selection made by the Director, a list consisting of six persons was prepared. The petitioners were included at serial Nos.2 and 3 amongst the general category candidates. One candidate belonging to the scheduled caste and two belonging to the category of ex-servicemen were selected. The petitioners were directed vide letter (Annexure P 2) dated 26.5.1994 that they should submit four forms of character verification and affix passport size photographs on them and medical fitness certificate because they had been selected for the temporary posts of Peons. The petitioners completed all these formalities. On the basis of this selection one candidate belonging to the general category, one member of the scheduled castes and (sic) (two^ candidates belonging to the category of ex-servicemen were appointed. Thereafter one more post became available under respondent No.2. Against this post he appointed Satbir Singh (respondent No.4). The petitioners filed C.W.P. No.15828 of 1994 which was disposed of by the High Court on 7.11.1994 with a direction that the representation made by the petitioner should be considered and decided by passing a speaking and well-reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Thereafter respondent No.2 passed the order (Annexure P 5) and declared that in view of the decision that posts be kept vacant till the finalisation of the case for security services on contract, they could not be appointed and their names would be considered as and when a decision to fill up the, posts is taken. The petitioners have challenged the order (Annexure P5) passed by respondent No.2 on the ground that four out of five posts of Peons only two candidates belonging to the scheduled castes/ex-servicemen could be appointed and the remaining three posts had to be filled from amongst the general category candidates, but without considering the candidature of the petitioners, respondent No.2 appointed two candidates belonging to ex-servicemen category and two belonging to the scheduled castes. The petitioners have pleaded that the decision taken by respondent No.2 not to fill the posts of Peons till the finalisation of the case regarding contractual security services is not correct because the Government had rejected this proposal as early as 26.4.1994 and this decision was reiterated vide letter No.35/30/94-2 T.E. dated 28.5.1995 written by the Commissioner and Secretary, Technical Education Department to the Director, Technical Education Department, Haryana. It has also been alleged by the petitioners that respondent No.8 has been appointed as Peon on daily wages and he is working for the last about 7 to 8 months. According to the petitioners, this respondent has not been appointed through the Employment Exchange but by way of back- door entry.

(3.) The respondents have opposed the writ petition only on the ground that respondent No.2 has decided not to fill the posts till a decision could be taken by the Government regarding contractual security services. The respondents have stated that the two posts of scheduled castes have been filled against the reserved quota and Man Mohan has been appointed on contract basis for a short period of two to three months on account of rush of work during admissions/examinations. Further assertions of the official-respondents is that the petitioners do not have any legal right to be appointed in the service merely because they have been selected by the Director, Technical Education after being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The respondents have also relied on D.O. Nos.4989 dated 14.9.1995 and 5549 dated 9.10.1995 written by the Director, Technical Education to the Government to reconsider its decision regarding employment of security personnel on contract basis.