PARVEEN KUMAR GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In response to the advertisement No. 9 of 1984, the petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short the 'Commission') for the post of Haryana Civil Services ('Executive Branch') and other allied services. Vide Annexure P/1, the petitioner was informed by the Commission the that his merit number in the list of candidates recommended for aforesaid post was 11. The petitioner was offered the post of Assistant Employment Officer in the Department of Employment Exchange, Haryana on temporary basis vide letter dated 24.3.1986 (Annexure P/2). He was, however, directed to get himself medically examined from the Chief Medical Officer and submit his fitness certificate to the Government at the earliest. The petitioner complied with the direction and submitted the medical certificate (Annexure P/3). However, on account of the interim stay granted by this Court in C.W.P. No. 2289 of 1986, the petitioner could not be appointed to the post. Unfortunately, even after the stay order was vacated, the petitioner did not get the requisite relief with the result that he was forced to approach this Court in CWP No. 16625 of 1992 wherein a direction was issued to the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation. The representation was rejected vide Annexure P/7 by passing a telegraphic order. Despite the fact that the petitioner was at number 11 in the merit and not appointed, the persons who were inferior in merit being at numbers 17, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25 and 27 were appointed to the post. Without impleading the aforesaid persons, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents for his appointment retrospectively alongwith all consequential benefits.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner has been resisted on various grounds including the ground that mere selection had not conferred any right upon the petitioner and that the respondents were not under a legal obligation to appoint him to the post of Assistant Employment Officer despite his being at serial number 11. It is further contended that as the selected persons have not been impleaded as party respondents in the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Alternatively, it is argued that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage adversely affecting the interests of those who have not made party respondents in the case.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.