LEKH RAJ SINGH Vs. HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing of result of the post of Driver (Light Vehicles), advertised vide Advertisement No. 8/203, category No. 14, dated 18.11.2003 (P-4), so far as it relates to the category of Ex- Serviceman SC-A Category. It has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner against the vacant post of Driver (Light Vehicle) being a dependent of Ex-Serviceman by considering the certificate issued by the District Sainik Welfare Officer at Kota as a valid document.

(2.) It is claimed that the petitioner is a dependent of Ex-Serviceman and belongs to Ex- Serviceman SC-A category and a certificate (P-3) to this effect has been issued by the Government of Rajasthan and the office of the District Sainik Welfare Office at Kota, certifying that the father of the petitioner is an Ex-Serviceman. Other than this the petitioner has been issued a Scheduled Caste Certificate dated 4.2.2003 (P-l) by the Tehsildar, Rewari, and a residence certificate, dated 4.2.2003 (P-2) by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Rewari, showing that the petitioner is a resident of Hary ana. It is further claimed that the petitioner is a matriculate having more than 3 years experience in driving of Light Motor Vehicles. The Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 1 advertised 81 posts of Light Vehicle Drivers for various Departments in Haryana, vide Advertisement No. 8/ 2003, dated 19.11.2003 (P-4). As per advertisement posts in question were reserved for different categories as per the following details : "General = 30, SC-A = 2, SC-B = 8, BC-A=9, BC-B = 6, ESM (Gen) = 5, (ESM SC-A = 3) ESM (BC-A) = 5, (ESM BC-B = 2) Outstanding Sports Person (SC-A) = 1)".

(3.) The petitioner being eligible applied for the post of driver (Light Vehicle) in his reserved category. He was issued Roll No. 1298 and written test was held on 18.9.2004. Result of written test was declared on 25.9.2004 (P-5) and the petitioner being successful in written test was called for interview on 6.10.2004. On the fixed date he was interviewed by the Interview Committee and his certificates were also checked. Final result was published on 30.11.2004 (P-7) wherein the petitioner could not make a grade and his roll number did not figure in the list of successful candidates. It is stated in Para 7 of the petition that in the result against Category-14 it has been mentioned that two posts of Ex-Serviceman SC-A category could not be filled up due to non-availability of eligible candidates. On the basis of this factual premise the petitioner has claimed that he is entitled to be appointed as Driver (Light Vehicle) being eligible under Ex-Serviceman SC-A category, inasmuch as, 3 posts were reserved for the aforementioned category and he has also qualified the written test. The petitioner also made a representation dated 4.12.2004 (P-8) to the Secretary of the respondent Commission for revaluation of marks obtained by him. Having heard the learned Counsel at some length, we are of the view that no right has come to be vested in the petitioner merely because he has qualified the written test and two posts of ESM SC-A category remained unfilled due o non-availability of eligible candidates. The averments made in Para 6 of the petition would show that the petitioner was interviewed by the Selection Committee and during the interview he has been non-suited having not been found suitable. Merely possessing of qualification or fulfilling the eligibility criteria does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim appointment against the post of driver (Light Vehicle) under the ESM SC-A category. Even otherwise, the petitioner having participated in the selection process and having failed cannot be permitted to challenge the selection process. He has no legal right which could be enforced by invoking our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P, and Othersv. Raj Kumar Sharma and Others, 2006(3) SLJ 81 (SC)=2006(2) RS J 284, reiterating the earlier view. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.