USHA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to issue directions to the official respondents 1 to 3, to appoint the petitioner on the post of Lecturer in Library Science having been regularly selected as per the recommendations made by the Haryana Public Service Commission (for brevity, 'the Commission'), vide its letter dated 4.12.2004 (P-1). It is appropriate to mention that the Commission has recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment as Lecturer in Library Science in pursuance to the requisition for recruitment of Class-II posts in various Polytechnics under the Technical Education Department, Haryana.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 5.8.2004 respondent No. 2 sent a requisition to the Commission for recruitment of Class-II posts in various Polytechnics under Technical Education Department, Haryana. On 16.9.2004, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to Group 'B' posts in various Polytechnics under Technical Education Department, Haryana including one post of Lecturer in Library Science. The petitioner being qualified and eligible applied for the post and she was called for interview on 5.11.2004. On 4.12.2004, the petitioner having been selected was recommended by the Commission and her name was forwarded to respondent No. 2 for appointment. However, no action was taken by respondent No. 2 to appoint her.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Lecturer in Library Science on ad hoc basis with a stipulation that her services were only a stop gap arrangement for a period of six months or she was to be relieved as soon as the candidate recommended by the Commission join the post held by her, whichever is earlier. Respondent No. 4 and some others persons had filed C.W.P. No. 1783 of 1999 seeking regularisation of their services on various posts held by them. Respondent No. 4 sought regularisation of her services on the post of Lecturer in Library Science, which was later on advertised by the Commission as noticed above. On 10.12.1999, this Court had passed an order of status quo in respect of some of the petitioners in C.W.P. No. 1783 of 1999. However, in respect of respondent No. 4, who was one of the petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1783 of 1999, status quo order was passed on 15.10.2004 with the observation that status quo was to be maintained till the next date of hearing because the aforementioned order was issued by the learned Single Judge as the writ petition had been admitted on 22.8.2002 without granting any status quo order qua respondent No. 4 at that stage.