SURENDER SINGH DESHTA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, may be thus stated. On August 25, 1998 an advertisement was published in the India Express, Chandigarh Edition, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for selection to certain vacancies in the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service, hereinafter referred to as the service. The written examination in accordance with the H.P. Judicial Service Rules 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), was proposed to be held by respondent No. 2, H.P. Public Service Commission, sometime in the month of November 1998. The necessary qualifications which would entitle the candidates to appear in such written examination, were detailed in the advertisement. A copy of such advertisement is attached to the writ petition as Annexure P -2,

(2.) In response to such advertisement, a number of candidates, including the three petitioners and respondent No. 4 to 13, appeared in the competitive examination held by respondent No. 2. Pursuant to such written examination, a total of 35 candidates, who were declared successful in the written test, were called for viva voce test. The candidates called for viva -voce included the three petitioners and respondents 4 to 13 . Such viva voce was held from February 23, 1999 to March 1, 1999. Final result of the selection was declared on March 1, 1999 at about 9.30 p.m. The names of the selected candidates were displayed on the Notice Board of respondent No. 2. Copy of the result declared and as displayed on the Notice Board is attached to the writ petition as Annexure P -5. In such result, respondents 4 to 13 were declared successful and their names were recommended by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 for being appointed to the service . While respondents 4 to 9 were recommended for appointment to the service against open and general categories of posts, respondents No. 10 and 11 were recommended for being appointed against the posts reserved for members of Schedule Casters, respondent No. 12 was recommended for being appointed against the vacancy reserved for wards of Freedom Fighters and respondent No. 13 was recommended for appointment against the post reserved for "other Backward Classes".

(3.) The selection of respondents No. 4 to 13 has been assailed by he petitioners by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 121, Constitution of India , and the following reliefs have been claimed : - (1) Issuance of appropriate writ/directions against respondents No. 1 and 2 for quashing the imposition of the condition of maximum of three chances for appearing in the H.P. Judicial Service : (2) The select list dated March 1, 1999 (Annexure P -5) of successful candidates, namely, respondents No. 4 to 13 as prepared and published by the respondent No. 2 be quashed and set aside with further direction to respondent No. 2 to recast the selection list without insisting on the criterion of three chances in the said examination; (3) The respondents No. 1 and 2 may be directed to produce the entire record pertaining to the selection/examination for H.P. Judicial Service; (4) Any other writ, order or directions to which the petitioners may be found entitled to,