MAHESH KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Haryana Public Service Commission vide its advertisement dated 12.11.1994 invited applications for nine posts of Assistant District Attorneys (Group-B) to be recruited on transfer basis. The last date for receipt of applications was intimated as being the 12th of December, 1994. The petitioner who at the relevant time was working as a Wasal Waki Navis in Tehsil Ellanabad being fully eligible for the post in question, submitted his application through proper channels to the Tehsildar. The Tehsildar sent the same to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa on 23.11.1994, who forwarded it to the Commissioner, Hisar and also sent a copy thereof to the Public Service Commission on 9th December, 1994. It appears that as the application had been forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner somewhat belatedly, the application duly recommended by the Commissioner was received in the Haryana Public Service Commission on 6th January, 1995. The petitioner was later informed vide Annexure P-4 dated 4.7.1994 that the Commission had considered the application and had decided not to call the petitioner for interview as the application had been received after the last date fixed for the receipt of applications. The petitioner, thereafter, made a representation dated 12th July, 1995 Annexure P-5 to the petition enumerating the facts stated above and praying that as he had submitted his application well in time; the delay, if any, that had occurred was on account of laxity in the office of the Deputy Commissioner and as such, a lenient view may be taken in the matter. This representation was rejected vide Annexure P-6 dated 29.8.1995 despite the fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa in his letter dated 27th July, 1995 Annexure P-7 had pleaded the case of the petitioner and had pointed out that the petitioner was not at fault and the delay had occurred on account of the laxity displayed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa and the Commissioner, Hisar Division. It is against the order Annexure P-6 that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the stand taken by the Commission is that the result of the selection had been declared on 14th September, 1995 and as the writ petition had been filed a month thereafter, it deserved to be dismissed on the ground of laches. It has been highlighted that the petitioner's application had been received by the Commission 24 days late and had been rightly rejected. In the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 it has been admitted that the Deputy Commissioner himself had recommended the case of the petitioner for reconsideration vide his letter dated 27.7.1995 (Annexure P-7) but in reply a vague attempt has been made to justify the action of the Commission in not entertaining the application.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Sud, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has argued that the present selection was to be made on transfer basis and as the petitioner was not at fault whatsoever and the delay in the despatch of the application had to be attributed either to the Deputy Commissioner, Sirsa or the Commissioner, Hisar Division, the Commission ought to have taken a realistic view of the matter and ought to have accommodated the petitioner.