RAMESH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Shri Ramesh Chander against the State of Himachal Pradesh through the Secretary Education to the Government of Himachal Pradesh as respondent No.1, H.P. Public Service Commission respondent No.2 and subsequently one Narender Nath was added as respondent No. 3. The petitioner has prayed that the selection and recommendations made by respondent No. 2 for appointment of Lecturer in Commerce from the category of dependents wards of Ex -servicemen may be quashed. The petitioner has also made other prayers which are not necessary at this stage to quote.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The writ petitioner who has obtained M. Phil degree in Commerce working was as a Lecturer in Government Senior Secondary "School, Lathiani on temporary basis under the centrally sponsored scheme. On 19 -1 -1992 respondent No.2 issued an advertisement calling for applications for eight posts of Lecturers in Commerce College. Out of eight posts four posts remained for general category and one each for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled tribe, Backward Classes and Ex -Servicemen/their Wards. The petitioner applied for the post, appeared in the written examination on 11 -7 -1992 and duly qualified. Thereafter he was called for interview and he appeared on 25 9 -1992, but he was not selected Thereafter on enquiry he came to know that he was considered for the appointment in the general category and not under the category of Ex -Servicemen/their wards. It may be stated that the petitioner claims to be ward of Ex -Serviceman, As the petitioner was denied appointment as a Ward of Ex Serviceman, he approached the Public Service Commission and submitted a representation. However, his application was rejected and in his place respondent No.3 was appointed in his category. Therefore, the present petition has been filed,

(4.) In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 2, a preliminary point has been taken that the present petition is barred under provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. It may be stated that it is admitted that: the advertisement was made for eight posts of Lecturers in Commerce College on 9 -1 -1992. One post was reserved for each of the categories including ex -servicemen/their wards, failing which for dependent wards of ex -servicemen, as stated by the petitioner. It has also been stated that in the absence of suitable candidates from ex -servicemen or their wards, the post will come under the general category. It is stated that 105 candidates applied for the posts and there was a written test Out of that five persons claimed as dependent wards of ex -servicemen. But the Commission found that not a single person was eligible for appointment under the above category. It has also been stated that the petitioner is working in a tenure post and, therefore he was not considered as dependent. ward of ex -serviceman and the petitioner was accordingly informed. According to respondent No.2, thereafter the petitioner desired to be considered against the general category post and the petitioner duly qualified for the same and he came within the general category candidates to be called for interview. He was accordingly interviewed on 25 -9 -1.992 but he was not selected on the basis of merit. Out of five dependent wards of ex -servicemen it was found on the date of interview on 229 -1992 that two of them were working in the H.P. State Co -operative Bank and the remaining three were working on tenure/volunteer/stop gap basis as Lecturers Therefore they were informed accordingly that they were not dependents of ex servicemen and therefore, no interview was held. However, the above five candidates made a representation to the Commission and the Commission took up the matter with the State Government. The Government by letter dated 7 -10 -1992 vide Annexure R -2/B to the counter clarified the matter and we put below relevant portion of the clarification mentioned in the said letter. Point No. (ii) for clarification sought for by the Public Service Commission and reply run as follows : "Whether the sons/daughters of ex -servicemen who are not employed themselves against reserved posts, employed on ad hoc basis or volunteer basis or contract basis or tenure basis or daily wages can be considered for the reserved posts carried forward for the fifth year. Yes, because the person employed on volunteer contract/tenure/daily wages cannot be automatically employed on regular basis." It was also stated in para 2 of the said letter that the decision conveyed in the said letter would be applicable from the date of issue of the letter and the selections already made or the matter otherwise decided will not be reopened. The said letter is at Annexure R -2/B.