LAWS(P&H)-1996-12-128

HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On December 03, 1996
HARBANS SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was a candidate for admission to the Patwar Course, prays that the selection of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 be quashed and that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 be directed to declare that he has been duly selected. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) On November 9, 1983, the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa advertised 95 posts of Patwar candidates. The petitioner as also a large number of other candidates submitted their applications. He was interviewed on December 24, 1983. The petitioner avers that the result of the selection was declared on May 12, 1984. The name of 172 persons were recommended. The petitioner was arbitrarily and illegally rejected. Persons like respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who were lower in merit were wrongly selected. It is also averred that the criteria adopted by the respondents was wholly illegal and unfair. The constitution on the selection committee by the Deputy Commissioner has also been impugned as being violative of the provisions of the Haryana Revenue Patwaries (Group-C) Service Rules,1981.

(3.) Two separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the respondents. In the written statement filed by the Deputy Commissioner, it has been pointed out that the Subordinate Services Selection Board was not in existence at the relevant time. Even otherwise, vide notification dated October 16,1979, which had been issued under Article 309 of the Constitution, the posts of Patwar candidates had been excluded from the purview of the Subordinate Services Selection Board. Accordingly a reference to the Board was not possible. Consequently, he had constituted as Selection Committee to consider and select the suitable candidates. Furthermore, the criterion adopted by the Selection Committee has also been disclosed. A copy thereof has been produced as Annexure I with the written statement. A preliminary objection to the effect that the selected candidates having not been impleaded, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the selection. has also been raised.