NAWAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On August 7, 1985, the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') advertised posts of Excise Inspectors. A written test was conducted on November 23/24, 1985. The petitioner Nawab Singh was declared successful in the written test and was placed at Serial No. 7 in the General Category. On March 12, 1986, interviews in pursuance to the written test were held. The petitioner was also interviewed. The Board rechanged its stand and took a view that since the interview marks had been awarded at the rate of 12.5% of the written test marks, therefore, fresh interview was required to be conducted. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner. The matter was considered by a Full Bench of this Court. The Full Bench dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner on June 3, 1998 holding that the judgement of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 454 did not apply to any other service except the State Civil Service. The petitioner took up the matter to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. It was held that Ashok Kumar Yadav's case was a case of universal application. The judgement in the petitioner's case is reported as AIR 1991 SC 1001. The Supreme Court, however, ordered the appointment of the petitioner but did not deem it appropriate to cancel the selection of the respondents who had been selected in the meantime in view of the changed criteria. As a result of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, the petitioner was issued an appointment letter on March 21, 1991. He was placed in a tentative seniority/gradation list and indicated junior to the private respondents, who had been so appointed in the meantime, when the matter was under consideration before the various Courts. The petitioner made a representation to the respondents for his appropriate placement in seniority/gradation list. The representation filed by the petitioner was not decided by the authorities. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) The official respondents have contested the claim of the petitioner. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2, it has been maintained that since the petitioner has joined w.e.f March 21, 1991 through appointment letter Annexure P-1, therefore, he was not entitled to a higher place in seniority/gradation list than the private respondents who had been appointed earlier. The respondents have also informed the Court through the written statement that the representation filed by the petitioners has since been rejected.

(3.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. Sh. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate for the petitioner has during the course of the arguments placed strong reliance upon an order dated February 10, 2006 passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh. The aforesaid order is annexed as Annexure P-5 along with the Civil Misc. application No. 10979 of 2006. On the strength of the aforesaid order Annexure P-5, learned senior counsel has argued that in identical circumstances, the department had chosen to grant the necessary relief to some of the persons who were similarly situated, although not selected in the same selection in which the petitioner was selected.