PARVEEN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Selection for the post of Agriculture Mechanic Instructor advertised by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana on 7.10.1991 is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to quash the entire selection made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board and to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Agriculture Mechanic Instructor on regular basis.

(2.) Petitioner's case is that while he fulfils the conditions of eligibility enumerated in annexure P-1, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were ineligible and yet they were considered by the S.S.S. Board for selection and appointment as Agriculture Mechanic Instructor and in this manner, his right of equal treatment before the law has been violated. Another ground of challenge to the impugned selection is that highly excessive marks were prescribed for the interview and thus the Board acted in contravention of the law laid down in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1985 3 SLR 200. Another ground of challenge is that as many as 64 candidates were interviewed on one day and, therefore, the entire process of interview was nothing but a farce. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have opposed the writ petition on the ground of non- joinder of the necessary parties and also on the ground that having faced the selection, the petitioner cannot turn around and question the process of selection adopted by the Board. In its separate reply, the respondent-Board has pleaded that Rishi Kumar (respondent No. 4) was having the qualification of diploma in Agriculture Mech. and, therefore, he fulfilled the conditions of eligibility specified in annexure P-1. Respondent No. 3 has also justified the process of interview by stating that the two Selection Committees were constituted and each Committee interviewed 162 candidates.

(3.) A look at the averments made in para 9 of the writ petition and the reply filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shows that while the petitioner has questioned the eligibility of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by alleging that neither of them possesses the qualifications enumerated in Annexure P-1, the respondents have chosen to justify the selection of respondent No. 4 only by stating that he possesses the qualification of Diploma in Agriculture Mech. Respondents are conspicuously silent about the allegation of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 had done two years' course in Vocational Education and was not having Diploma in Agricultural Engineering or National Trade Certificate in Farm Engineering from a recognised institute or Crafts Instructor Course in Farm Mechanic from a recognised institute. So far as respondent No. 5 is concerned, he has not chosen to file reply to the petition. In view of this fact situation, we have no hesitation to record a finding that respondent No. 5 was not qualified to be considered for selection and appointment on the post of Agriculture Mechanic Instructor because he did not have the minimum qualifications enumerated in annexure P-1.