SAMIR YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Excise & Taxation Officer in open competition in a selection conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission respondent No.3. Pursuant to the offer of appointment dated 19.06.1997, the petitioner joined his duties on 04.07.1997. On 16.04.1998, he was issued a show cause notice as to why his services should not be terminated since he was appointed in excess of the advertised vacancies as per revised merit list dated 18.12.1997. The reply filed by the petitioner was not found satisfactory and his services were terminated on 26.10.1998, a copy of which has been endorsed to the petitioner on 28.10.1998 (Annex P-9).

(2.) Aggrieved by the order dated 26.10.1998/28.10.1998 (Annex P- 9), the petitioner approached this Court by way of present petition. On 10.11.1998, the Division Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order (Annex P-9) till 23.11.1998. The ad interim stay has continued by interim orders from time to time and operates till today. The interim stay order dated 10.11.1998 is significant since it noticed the arguments of Mr. R.K.Malik made at that time on the basis of which interim stay was granted. The order dated 10.11.1998 reads as follows:

(3.) During the pendency of this petition and by virtue of the stay order, the petitioner was promoted as Excise & Taxation Officer on 29.10.2004 and, thereafter as Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner on 27.05.2015 and has some years of service left. It may be briefly noticed that the dispute began when the Haryana Public Service Commission increased the original vacancies advertised i.e. 62 to 74 by a corrigendum. It would not be necessary to go into the intricacies of the case examining legal stand points since equities have come in developing over the passing years sufficient not to undo by a writ and send him packing home. The petitioner has been in service under a stay order from June, 1997, which is about two decades and it will be wholly inequitable and unjust to vacate the stay or to dismiss the petition only for the reason he was discovered to be appointed in excess of vacancies notified. Therefore, it is not felt necessary to go into the arguments raised by Ms. Shruti Jain Goel, learned AAG, Haryana that reallocation is not possible against unfilled vacancies, which had to go to the next recruitment process. The argument may have held water once, but many a recruitment must have taken place meanwhile and serious complications would arise, if the argument is accepted at this stage after having earned promotions and gaining skills on the job.