ROSHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to recommend the name of the petitioners as Lecturers in Physics (College Cadre) H.E.S. Class-II Cadre in Haryana State, and also a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the selection/appointment of candidates, namely, respondents 4 to 7.

(2.) Haryana Public Service Commission (in short, the Commission) advertised 65 posts of Lecturers (College Cadre) H.E.S. Class-II in various subjects including two posts of Lecturers in Physics. Two posts in Physics were reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe candidates. The closing date for submission of applications was 15.5.1995. Petitioners who belong to backward classes having applied against the said posts, were called for interview. Petitioners were not selected, but respondents 4 to 7 who belong to general category were selected/appointed. In this petition, the grievance of the petitioners is two-fold. The first one is that vide letter from the Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana dated 30.7.1986, a decision was taken by the Government that if after two advertisements, the candidates belonging to scheduled castes are not available, the posts will be re-advertised for the third time indicating that if candidates belonging to scheduled castes are not available, these posts will be filled up from amongst backward class candidates. Similarly, if after two advertisements, the candidates belonging to backward class category are not available, the posts will be re-advertised for the third time indicating that if candidates belonging to backward class category are not available, these posts will be filled up from amongst the scheduled caste candidates. If, however, the candidates belonging to the scheduled caste category as well as backward class category are not available, the posts will be filled up from the candidates belonging to the general category. The precise grievance is that these instructions have not been followed and the posts reserved for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes cannot be filled from the general category candidates, even if these are re-advertised for the third time, without affording opportunity to the candidates belonging to the backward classes. The second grievance is that though two posts were advertised, but instead of recommending the names of two persons against these two posts, four persons have been recommended and appointed.

(3.) Respondents No.1and 3, 2, 5 and 7 and 6 have filed written statements. The Commission in its written statement has denied the allegations made in the petition and has stated that the instructions in regard to selection have been followed by the Commission. Both petitioners were duly considered against the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes belonging to Haryana, and they have not been found suitable, candidates from general category, namely, respondents 4 to 7 were recommended for appointment. In answer to the second grievance, reference has been made to Government instructions contained in circular letters No.2311-IGSI-72/15727, dated 26.5.1972 and No.5024-IGSI-72/26877, dated 8.9.1972 which provide that the Commission can recommend extra names. Respondents 5 and 7 in their written statement have stated that they were higher in merit in comparison to the petitioners. Respondent No.7 had passed her Matric with 571 out of 900 marks and B.Sc. with 594 out of 950 marks and M.Sc. with 694 out of 1,000 marks. Respondent No.5 passed B.Sc. with 64% marks and M.Sc. previous with 64.4% marks and M.Sc. final with 56.5% marks. Apart from that, respondent No.5 is good speaker, having stood first in District Level Debate in 1978 and 1979 and second at State Level Debate in 1978; first in Debate and 2nd in Symposium in Zonal Youth Festival of M.D.U., Rohtak, in December, 1983; first in Debate in Inter-Zonal Youth Festival of M.D.U., Rohtak in February, 1984. Respondent No.5 also delivered talks on All India Radio, Rohtak, several times. Respondent No.6 in his written statement has submitted that he was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Lecturer on 7.9.1981 and he was continuing on ad-hoc basis, when the Government offered him the post of Lecturer on the recommendation of the Commission and he joined as such on 25.2.1988 on regular basis. He has also submitted that if he had not joined the present post, he would have been regularised when the Government had taken a decision that all ad-hoc lecturers who had completed two years' service on 31.12.1990 are entitled to regularisation. The policy decision in this regard has been annexed as Annexure R-6/1.