ANITA KUMARI (MISS ) Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the appointment of respondents 4 to 10 as Forest Rangers.

(2.) According to the petitioner, in Dec., 1994, seven posts of Forest Rangers were advertised and all the posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes. But the advertisement also gave liberty to general category candidates to apply and their candidature can be considered in the event of non-availability of the Scheduled Caste candidates. The Subordinate Services Selection Board found only three scheduled caste candidates suitable and the remaining vacancies were recommended to be filled up by three general category candidates and one by Ex-Servicemen category. Again an advertisement was issued in the year 1995 to fill up six posts of Forest Rangers, out of which four posts were reserved for scheduled castes category candidates and two were for Ex-Servicemen category candidates and in pursuance of this advertisement, the petitioner was recommended at Sr. No. 4 in order of merit against the quota meant for Ex.Servicemen category, but she was not appointed. According to her, there is a back-log of Ex.Servicemen quota. She claims to be eligible to be appointed on the basis of the recommendations of Subordinate Services Selection Board. In this writ petition she is challenging the appointment of respondents 4 to 10.

(3.) Respondents 4 to 8 were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1994 as is evident from Annexures P-2 and P-3. Since the petitioner has not applied for the post in pursuance of that advertisement, she cannot challenge the appointment of respondents 4 to 8. Respondents No. 9 and 10 admittedly belong to the category of dependents of Ex-Servicemen. They were shown at Sr. No. 3 and 6 in order of merit in Annexure P-5 and the petitioner has been shown at Sr. No. 7 i.e. below respondent No. 10. Therefore, she cannot claim a march over respondents 9 and 10. Respondents 7 and 8 were recommended because of the conversion of the posts to general category and they have been appointed in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 1994. Since the petitioner was not a candidate in that selection, she cannot challenge the same.