SURINDER SINGH VERMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Backward Class (Block-A) of Haryana being Kumhar by caste and who has been recommended for appointment as A-Class Naib Tehsildar by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent-Board'), has challenged the decision of the respondent No. 2 not to appoint him for the purpose of accommodating the respondent No. 3.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts of the case are that vide advertisement No. 6/95, the respondent-Board advertised six posts of A-Class Naib Tehsildar for Commissioner, Gurgaon Division. Of these, two were reserved for Scheduled Castes, two for Backward Classes and two for Ex-servicemen of Haryana. By a corrigendum published in the Tribune on 30.9.1995, the respondent-Board intimated that the total number of posts shall be read as 7, of which one was shown as reserved for Scheduled Castes (Block-B), two for Backward Classes (Block-A) and four for general category of Haryana. After interviewing the candidates, the respondent-Board prepared a select list in which the petitioner's name came to be placed at No. 10 in the over all merit and at No. 2 among the candidates of Backward Classes (Block-A). The candidate who was at No. 1 among the Backward Classes (Block-A) was appointed to the service but the second post was filled by appointing the respondent No. 2, who belongs to Backward Classes (Block-B), on compassionate grounds.

(3.) By placing reliance on the circular No. 22/36/95-3.GS-III dated 20th July, 1995 issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, the petitioner has pleaded that the posts reserved for Backward Classes (Block-A) cannot be filled by appointing a candidate of Backward Classes (Block-B). He has also challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the policy of compassionate appointment cannot be used to defeat the right of duly selected candidate to be appointed against the advertised posts. The petitioner has also pleaded that a large number of posts of A-Class Naib Tehsildars are vacant in various divisions and there is no justification to deny appointment to him for the purpose of accommodating respondent No. 3 at Gurgaon. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as respondent No. 4 have admitted the factum of petitioner's selection for appointment as A-Class Naib Tehsildar. They have also stated that as per the instructions issued by the Chief Secretary, posts reserved for Backward Classes (Block-A) can be filled only from candidates belonging to Block-A and the posts reserved for Block-B can be filled only from the candidates belonging to that category. Qua respondent No. 3 it has been stated that he was appointed on compassionate grounds and an intimation to this effect was sent to the respondent-Board with the request that only one candidate belonging to Backward Classes (Block-A) should be selected. In his reply, the respondent No. 3 has defended his appointment on the basis of the judgment by the Government. He has pleaded that the competent authority appointed him vide order dated 22.11.1995 as per the policy formulated by the government.