SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common order, the above mentioned five writ petitions are being disposed of as all the writ petitions involve same question of law and similar facts.

(2.) For the purpose of this order, the facts are being taken from CWP No.4565 of 2013 titled as Sanjeev Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana and others .

(3.) Respondent No.2-Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad issued an advertisement advertising 3118 posts of Information-cum-office-cum- Library Manager, for the schools within the State of Haryana. The said advertisement was issued on 08.02.2012. As per the advertisement, appointment was to be made on the basis of merit, which was to be prepared on the basis of written test and there was no negative marking in the written examination. Petitioners claiming themselves to be fully eligible and qualified for the advertised posts, applied for the same and were issued roll numbers for competing for the post of Information-cum-office-cum-Library Manager. Before the written test was conducted, a corrigendum was issued that the written test would be of 300 marks with negative marking as well. Without raising any grievance to the said change of criteria, petitioners participated in the selection process and appeared in the written test. Ultimately, the result of the test was declared on 07.08.2012, wherein, only candidates, who had secured 23% marks, were brought into merit list so as to consider them for appointment irrespective of the number of posts advertised. The petitioners failed to make it to the merit list as they did not secure 23% marks in the written test. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the effect that once there was no condition in the advertisement that candidate will be considered for appointment in case, he/she secures at least 23% marks in the written test and the said condition was brought into operation after issuance of advertisement. The said condition of securing minimum 23% marks in written test is contrary and illegal and cannot be given effect to and appointment should be made keeping in view the first advertisement ignoring the requirement of minimum 23% marks in the written test and consequently the claim of the petitioners should be considered, especially, that posts are lying vacant.