RAJBIR SINGH Vs. HARYANA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, HISAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner complains that the action of the Haryana Agricultural University in appointing respondent No. 2 as a District Extension Specialist (Animal Science) in spite of the fact that he was below him in order of merit, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He, therefore, prays that the appointment of respondent No. 2 be quashed and the respondent-University be directed to appoint him. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The University advertised two posts of District and Extension Specialists (Animal Science) on January 1, 1989. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 were the candidates for these posts. The Selection Committee met on September 7, 1989. It prepared a merit list of 12 candidates. According to this merit list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 9 and respondent No. 2 was placed at Serial No. 10. Vide its order dated November 14, 1989, the respondent-University appointed the first three persons out of the candidates recommended by the Selection Committee. Thereafter, vide order dated February 27, 1990, five more candidates, including respondent No. 2, were appointed. The petitioner's grievance is that he, having been placed higher than respondent No. 2 in order of merit, had a better right to be appointed and the action of the University in ignoring him was wholly illegal and violative of the provision of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioner served a notice. No action was taken. He was thus approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) A written statement has been filed by respondent No. 1 only. It has been admitted that the Selection Committee had recommended the names of 12 candidates. It is also admitted that the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 9 as he had been awarded 29 marks while respondent No. 2, who had secured 27 marks, was placed at Serial No. 10. It has been further stated that the Selection Committee "committed some mistakes". According to the University, the Selection Committee had wrongly allowed one mark to Rajbir Singh for experience. It is further pointed out that the Selection Committee had committed an error in not allowing any marks to respondent No. 2 for the paper which had been published by him. The University goes on to state that the performance of respondent No. 2 at the time of interview was apparently very good, as the Selection Committee had given him 14 marks out of 15 whereas the petitioner had been awarded only 9 marks. On these premises, it has been submitted that the writ petition has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.