SONIA SABHARWAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of direction to the respondents to comply with Rule 8 Part-D of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 (for brevity, 'the Rules') with a further direction to respondent No. 1 State of Haryana to forward the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 3 the High Court for inclusion of her name in the roll of register maintained under the Rules. A further direction has been sought to respondent No. 3 the High Court to recommend the name of the petitioner to respondent No. 1 for appointment to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Service as the name of the petitioner falls within 5 additional names considered for filling up unforeseen vacancies which have arisen within a period of one year from the date of selection of the candidates as a result of the competitive examination.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-State issued an advertisement in February, 2000 for filling up 12 posts of Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Out of 12 posts, 6 posts were reserved for General Category and the remaining 6 posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes. In the present case, the issue concerns the General Category as the petitioner had applied for a post in respect of General Category. On 18.8.2000, the result was declared and the petitioner had secured 55% marks in aggregate (P-1). On 30.8.2000, the respondent-State issued Gazette Notification and the name of the petitioner was placed in order of merit at Sr. No. 11 (P-2).

(3.) However, the petitioner was not considered for appointment and on 19.10.2000 she made a representation to the respondent-State (P-3). On 6.10.2003, the petitioner sent a reminder/representation under Registered Post. She thereafter filed Civil Writ Petition No. 20333 of 2003, which was disposed of on 20.12.2003 by a Division Bench of this Court directing the respondents to consider her representation and pass a speaking order within three months. Her claim was rejected on 17.3.2004 (P-5). On 5.4.2004, the petitioner again represented that there existed more than 8 unforeseen vacancies, which were rendered vacant within a period of one year from the date of selection as a result of the examination held in May, 2000 and she claimed that her representation has been illegally rejected on 17.3.2004 (P-5) by a non-speaking order. However, she filed the instant writ petition claiming that the unforeseen vacancies arising between the period commencing from 15.11.2000 to 15.11.2001 are required to be filled up by offering one of the vacancies to her as her name had appeared at Sr. No. 11 in order of merit. It has been claimed that in the case of Kuldeep Singh v. State of Haryana & others, 2003(1) RSJ 419, three candidates have been granted the relief in respect of unforeseen vacancies as contemplated by Rule 8 of the Rules in addition to six vacancies which were filled up on the basis of order of merit as recommended by respondent No. 2 Haryana Public Service Commission.