MANJU BALA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.19894, 19754, 19128, 19362, 19728, 19638, 19866, 19537, 19641, 19846, 19535, 19542, 19724, 19878, 19930, 20084, 20169, 20212, 20431 of 2005, 33, 41, 100, 186, 236, 268, 1288 and 2116 of 2006. The factual matrix leading to the filing of these writ petitions is as under:- The State of Haryana vide advertisement No.1 of 2005 published on 16.7.2005 invited applications for filling up 381 temporary posts of Lecturers in the School Cadre in the Department of Education by way of direct recruitment. All the petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions submitted their applications in response to the advertisement for being considered for appointment to these posts. Interviews to consider the claims of various candidates against the advertised posts commenced in December, 2005. Inspite of the fact that the petitioners were fulfilling the minimum eligibility qualifications for being considered for appointment, they were not called for interview. It is at that stage that these writ petitions were filed with a prayer that the respondent-State of Haryana should be directed to interview the petitioners and to consider them for selection against the posts of Lecturers which have been advertised. Notice of motion was issued in these writ petitions and it was ordered that in the meanwhile, the petitioners may be interviewed provisionally, subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. It was also ordered that the result would not be declared till further orders.

(2.) In response to the notice issued a written statement has been filed by the Under Secretary, Higher Education, Haryana on behalf of the State Government. In the reply it is disclosed that against 381 posts of Lecturers which were advertised 2806 applications were received. The selection was to be made on the basis of academic record and interview alone, without there being any written test. Since the number of applications received were many times the number of posts advertised the State Government took a decision to short list the candidates to be called for interview and it was decided to call three times the number of candidates than the posts advertised. For this purpose the State Government had formulated a criteria which was disclosed to the Court at the time of arguments. A copy of the same was also supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The criteria is as under:-

(3.) It is further contended in the reply that this short listing is strictly in accordance with Note III appearing in the advertisement which specifically states that the number of candidates to be called for interview can be restricted on the basis of qualification and experience higher than the minimum prescribed in the advertisement. The said clause is in the following terms:-