GOPI CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claiming themselves to be belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, the petitioners, who were earlier appointed as Assistant Excise and Taxation Officers, have approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to allocate them to the posts of Excise and Taxation Officers against the vacancies caused by Sarvashri Dalbir Singh and Sat Parkash Ranga, who despite being offered the posts did not accept the same.

(2.) It is submitted that the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as "the Commission") advertised the posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services, vide advertisement notice. Annexure P/1. Out of 29 candidates allocated for appointment as Excise and Taxation Officer, 8 belonged to scheduled castes. It is contended that two candidates belonging to the scheduled castes category namely Dalbir Singh and Sat Parkash did not join the posts despite offer being made. The petitioners claim to have represented to the Chief Secretary for their appointment as Excise and Taxation Officers. Despite various representations, made by petitioner, no relief was granted to them who have thereafter chosen to file the present writ petition.

(3.) Case of the petitioners is grounded upon the alleged instructions, according to which when offer is made to a candidate and the does not accept the offer, the next candidate in order of merit in that category has a right to appointment to the said post. It is submitted that as the case of the petitioners was under consideration of the Law Department, they did not file the petition earlier and now being left with no option, they have approached this Court for the appropriate relief. It is contended that under similar circumstances, this Court in Rohtas Singh Kharab v. State of Haryana,1989 6 SLR 45 issued direction to reallocate/appoint the next candidate in order of merit. The petitioners have also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana, 1994 1 SCT 11 It is contended that as both the aforesaid posts of Excise and Taxation Officers are still lying vacant, the petitioners have a right to be appointed to the said posts. Action of the respondents is alleged to be discriminatory and violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.