JAGBIR SINGH Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the selection and appointments to the posts of Assistant Lineman made by the Haryana State Electricity Board. They have filed 23 writ petitions with the basic prayer that selection be quashed and that the respondents be directed to appoint them. A few facts as appearing from the record of Civil Writ Petition No. 7382 of 1993 may be briefly noticed.

(2.) On March, 2, 1992, the Board advertised 791 posts of Assistant Linemen. Out of the these, 408 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes, 135 for Ex- servicemen and 24 for physically handicapped of Haryana domicile. The Board also advertised 250 posts of Shift Attendants out of which 90 were reserved for Scheduled Castes/Tribes, 16 for Backward class, 43 for Ex-servicemen and 7 for physically handicapped persons. Both categories of posts were in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. The following qualifications were prescribed :-

(3.) Conditions regarding age limit and relaxation thereof were also prescribed. The petitioners claim that they fulfil the prescribed qualifications. They even possessed experience. They consequently applied for these posts. They were called for interview for both the posts. The interviews were conducted by the Selection Committees appointed for different circles. They were interviewed by the Committee at Jind. The selection was made on March 4, 1993 on the basis of interview alone and the selection list pertaining to Jind circle was issued. According to the petitioners, the Board had selected and appointed candidates far in excess of the posts advertised by it. In the cadre of Linemen, no posts were reserved for the members of Backward Class to which the petitioners, in this case, belong. Persons who did not fulfil qualifications have been selected and appointed. They challenge the selection on the ground that the interview was a farce and the selection made on the basis thereof cannot be sustained. Candidates who were either not eligible or possessed lower qualifications than the petitioners have been selected. Persons like the petitioners who had completed apprenticeship training and for whom 50% of the vacancies were to be reserved in accordance with the instructions issued by the Government of India, vide its letter dated May 24, 1983 were not appointed. Selection has been made on a districtwise basis which was illegal. The petitioners filed C.M. No. 2186 of 1994. They submitted that on account of lack of particulars, it is not possible to implead all the selected candidates and respondents No. 3 to 19 be treated as representing the interests of all the selected candidates.