SHUBH KIRAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection/appointment of respondent No. 3 for the post of Scientist Grade-I in the Department of Environment, Haryana.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a vacancy arose in the Department of Environment and it was decided to fill up the same from amongst the eligible candidates. Three persons i.e., the petitioner, respondent No. 3 and one Kusum Kumar Arora were considered eligible for the post of Scientist Grade-I. The respondents decided to hold the interview as well as to consider their academic and service record for the said post. Kusum Kumar Arora did not appear in the interview and hence for one post of Scientist Grade-I only two candidates were left i.e., the petitioner and respondent No. 3. The Selection Committee comprising of Director Environment, Deputy Secretary Environment and two Scientists i.e., Scientist Grade-I and Scientist Grade-II constituted the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee awarded 64 marks each to the petitioner as well as to respondent No. 3. As the marks of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 were absolutely the same, therefore, the Selection Committee recommended the name of the petitioner on the basis of age. The date of birth of the petitioner is 13.1.1955, whereas the date of birth of respondent No. 3 is 28.10.1958. However, orders were issued for appointing respondent No. 3 as Scientist Grade-I on the ground that he had been working as Senior Scientific Assistant in the Department of Environment whereas, the petitioner was working in the office of Archaeology Department as Assistant Scientist.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner and respondent No. 3 have both secured 64 marks, therefore, the name of the petitioner was rightly recommended by the Selection Committee as the petitioner was older in age. It is submitted that in a case where two candidates secure same number of marks and all other qualifications are also the same then the person who is elder in age has to be preferred over the person who is younger. Learned counsel further submits that once the Selection Committee has recommended the name of the petitioner then either the recommendations should have been accepted or rejected in toto but the respondents could not travel beyond the recommendations made. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in Vinodan T. and others V/s. University of Callicut, 2002 3 RSJ 598, wherein it has been held that:-