MAJOR PHALIT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal issue raised in these petitions is whether the petitioners are entitled to be appointed to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in view of the amendment made to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') vide notification dated 30th of October, 1996. In order to decide the aforementioned issue and other points raised by the petitioners, we shall first notice the relevant facts : Civil Writ Petition 868 of 1997 :

(2.) Vide advertisement No. 7 of 1996, the Haryana Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') advertised 21 posts for recruitment to Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (hereafter referred to as 'the service'). Subsequently, the number of posts was increased from 21 to 36, vide corrigendum published in the newspapers dated 12.4.1996. Out of these, nine posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes of Haryana, one for Ex- Serviceman of Haryana and three for physically handicapped (Orthopaedically Handicapped) of Haryana. One of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement and the corrigendum was that in the event of non-availability of physically handicapped candidates, the second and the third vacancy will be filled from the category of Ex-servicemen. The petitioner, who is an Ex- serviceman was one of the applicants for recruitment to the service. After having passed the written examination, the petitioner was interviewed on 29.11.1996. He secured 482 marks in the written test out of 900 marks and 76 marks out of 120 marks in the viva-voce. However, by applying the unamended rules, the Commission did not recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the service. He has made two-fold grievance, namely, (i) the failure of the Commission to recommend his name in the light of the amendment made in the Rules vide notification dated 30th October, 1996, read with the judgment of the High Court in Ravinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and others is illegal and arbitrary; and (ii) the posts of physically handicapped candidates, which remained unfilled, should have been offered to the candidates belonging to the category of Ex-servicemen and if that was done, his name was bound to be recommended for appointment to the service. The respondent No. 1 has opposed the writ petition on the ground that the amendment made in the Rules vide notification dated 30.10.1996 is not retrospective and the same cannot be applied to the recruitment initiated in February, 1996. The State Government has further pleaded that in view of the directions given by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 15693 of 1994, 'R.S. Mittal v. State of Punjab and others', a requisition was sent to the commission on 22.2.1996 for recruitment to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). The Commission advertised the posts and conducted the written examination in the month of May, 1996. After declaring the result of the written examination, the viva-voce test was held from 21.11.96 to 4.12.96. The final result was prepared on the basis of the existing rules and the petitioner is not entitled to take advantage of the amendment made vide notification dated 30.10.1996. The case set up by the Commission is that the selection was made strictly in accordance with the existing rules and the petitioner is not entitled to take advantage of the amendment in Rule 8, Part-C of the Rules. Civil Writ Petition No. 1316 of 1997.

(3.) Petitioner-Ramesh Chander Dimri is a dependent of Ex-serviceman and is presently practising as an Advocate in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. He applied for recruitment to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) in the year 1993, but failed to secure sufficient marks so as to become entitled to be appointed to the service. He again applied for recruitment to the service in response to the advertisement No. 7 of 1996. After passing the written test, he was called for interview held in the month of November, 1996. He secured 517 marks in the written examination out of a total of 900 marks and 40 marks in viva-voce out of 120 marks. He has prayed for directing the respondent-Commission to recommend his name for appointment to the service in the light of the amendment made vide notification dated 30.10.1996, in compliance of the directions given by the High Court on January 30, 1996 in C.W.P. No. 821 of 1996. The petitioner has also claimed appointment against the unfilled vacancies of physically handicapped. Civil Writ Petition No. 2210 of 1997