SUMAN RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner assails the action of the respondent/Agriculture Department, State of Haryana in having declined to her appointment to the post of Agriculture Development Officer.

(2.) In the year 2009, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Commission') issued advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to 267 posts of Agriculture Development Officers under the Department of Agriculture, State of Haryana. 115 posts were to be filled up from amongst general category candidates. Petitioner who was eligible in terms of eligibility conditions contained in the advertisement, applied for the post as a general category candidate and subjected herself to a process of selection. The Commission declared the final result on 16.07.2012. The Commission submitted its recommendations to the State Government containing names of 115 candidates belonging to the general category candidates and in addition thereto, 11 other candidates were also declared as successful but their names figured in a waiting list and in which name of the petitioner found mention 1 of 8 at Sr. No.6.

(3.) The entire case set up on behalf of the petitioner is that the candidature of 8 candidates, selected and recommended for appointment as Agriculture Development Officer from amongst the 115 belonging to the general category has been cancelled and yet the petitioner who was at Sr. No.6 in the waiting list has been denied appointment. A plea of discrimination has also been raised by contending that as opposed to the candidature of 8 candidates having been cancelled, the waiting list has been operated only to offer appointment letters to the first three candidates from the waiting list whereas the others including the petitioner have been denied such benefit. It has also been contended that 5 posts of Agriculture Development Officers against the general category are still lying vacant and yet the State Government is adamant in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner and such action is arbitrary, illegal as also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.