RAMPHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, namely, C.W.P. Nos. 3579 of 2000, 16073 of 2000 and 6580 of 2002, involve a common question of law viz., whether an Exservicemen (for brevity, 'ESM') are to be given preference over the dependent of Ex-servicemen (for brevity, 'DESM'). It is an admitted fact that Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board advertised various posts of Gram Sachivs in Development and Panchayat CWP No. 19547 of 2005 Department in 1991, interviews were held and selection was finalised in the year 1992. The petitioners in C.W.P. Nos. 3579 of 2000 and 16073 of 2000 are ESM whereas the petitioner in the third petition bearing C.W.P. No. 6580 of 2002 is DESM. According to instructions dated 21.05.1979 and 21.11.1980 (P-2 and P-3 with C.W.P. No. 6580 of 2002) the DESM could be considered for the post which remain vacant after considering the case of ESM. If a post remain vacant for want of a suitable ESM then the same was to be filled by DESM. However, despite such clear instructions DESM were appointed in preference to ESM. One such DESM is before this Court in C.W.P. No. 6580 of 2002. The other are ESM who feel aggrieved by the action of the respondents for not offering them appointment on the ground that those posts were occupied by the DESM. The aforesaid situation has arisen despite the fact that rights of both ESM and DESM have been crystallized by the judgments of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court as would be evident from the following paras.

(2.) After the selection and appointment have been made on the posts of Gram Sachivs, some writ petitions were filed in this Court to challenge the action of the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, by selecting the DESM in preference to ESM and ignoring their claim. This Court had dismissed those petitions. The matter was taken to Hon'ble the Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No. 8887 of 1996 along with other appeals, the view taken by this Court was set aside. The instructions dated 21.05.1979 and 21.11.1980 (P-2 & P-3 with C.W.P. No. 6580 of 2002) were interpreted as under :-

(3.) After holding in the aforementioned manner, in the judgment dated 25.3.1996 (P-1 with C.W.P. No. 16073 of 2000) directions were issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to the respondents to consider the cases of DESM against the unfilled posts reserved for ESM. The essence of the judgment is that the claim of the DESM could be considered only in the eventuality when the post remain unfilled after due consideration of the cases of the ESM. Accordingly, the Subordinate Services Selection Board re-determined the merit list (P-2). The name of Ramphal (petitioner in C.W.P. No. 16073 of 2000) appeared at Sr. No. 106 and that of Mahesh Chand (petitioner in C.W.P. No. 6580 of 2002) appeared at Sr. No. 104, who belongs to the ESM category. A show cause notice was issued to the DESM on 14.3.2000, whose services were liable to be terminated. The petitioners who belong to ESM category served a legal notice, dated 11.10.2000 (P-5) asserting their rights in accordance with the merit. However, they were informed that the action for appointment was to be taken after the decision of in the case of Rajesh Kumar Tahlan and others V/s. State of Haryana and others, 2002 3 SLR 782(C.W.P. No. 15634 of 1999). In Rajesh Kumar Tahlan's case, (P-4), a Division Bench of this Court had issued the following directions :-