SANJEEV JAIN Vs. HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, PANCHKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge the advertisement dated March 4, 1996 issued by the Respondent-Board vide which posts of Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendants have been advertised. This advertisement has been issued by the Board in pursuance to the judgment dated November 22, 1995 by which Civil Writ Petition No. 7382 of 1993 and 22 other petitions challenging the selection made by the Board had been accepted. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On March 2, 1992, the Haryana State Electricity Board had advertised posts of Assistant Linemen and Shift Attendants. The selection was made. The selected candidates were appointed. The selection made by the Board was challenged through various writ petitions including Civil Writ Petition No. 7382 of 1993. In these petitions, it was alleged that selections had been made by different committees without following a uniform criterion. It was also alleged that the Board had made excessive reservation. The first contention was accepted. It was held that the selection of various candidates including the present petitioners was vitiated as the Board had not followed a uniform criterion. However, with regard to the allegation that excessive reservation had been made for Scheduled Castes etc. it was observed that the factual position was not clear. The Board was directed to examine the issue in the light of the facts as established on the record. Resultantly, the selection and the consequential appointments to the posts of Assistant Linemen and Shift Attendants were held to be vitiated. The Board was directed to make fresh selections after issuing an advertisement. Keeping in view the fact that the work of the Board may not suffer and inconvenience is not caused to the public, it was directed as an interim measure that the persons "already appointed shall be allowed to continue...."

(3.) In pursuance to these directions, the Board has issued an advertisement on March 4, 1996. The petitioners challenge this advertisement on a two-fold basis. Firstly, it has been alleged that the method of selection and condition of eligibility has been wrongly changed inasmuch as it has now been provided in the advertisement that "selection of candidates will be made on the basis of written test and marks obtained in the I.T.I. certificate/extra curricular/interview." According to the petitioners, the condition of written test "will amount to change" in the eligibility criterion which is not permitted by law. Secondly, it has been alleged that there is excessive reservation of posts for different categories of persons like those belonging to Scheduled Castes etc.