Rajbir Singh vs In The Circumstances on 19 February, 2009

C.W.P No. 17257 of 1999                                     ::1::

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                       C.W.P No. 17257 of 1999
                                       Date of decision : February 19, 2009


Rajbir Singh,

                                             ...... Petitioner (s)

                         v.

State of Haryana and others,
                                             ...... Respondent(s)

                               ***

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

***

Present : Mr. Pankaj Nanhera, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG Haryana
for the respondents.

***

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

***

AJAY TEWARI, J

This order may be read in consequence to the order dated

2.2.2009.

The only argument raised by counsel for the respondents is that

the State of Haryana has enacted the Haryana Civil Services (Executive

Branch) and Allied Services and other Services Common/Combined

Examination Act, 2002. Section 4 thereof is as follows :-

“4. (1) No appointment shall be made to any post or

service to which this Act applies beyond the number of

posts advertised.

 C.W.P No. 17257 of 1999                                   ::2::

               (2)      Notwithstanding     anything       to     the    contrary

contained in any judgment, order, decree or decision of a

court of law, Act, rule, regulation or executive

instructions, no candidate, from the date of

commencement of this Act, shall, on the basis of his

merit, or placement in a Common/Combined

Examination, have right to seek appointment to Haryana

Civil Services (Executive Branch) and Allied Services or

Other Services beyond the number of advertised posts.

(3) The State Government shall not be competent to

offer appointment to a candidate, who is placed in the

waiting list or who claims himself to be in the waiting list

on the basis of Common/Combined Examination, for a

post for which his name was not recommended by the

Commission :

Provided that if a candidate has been appointed or

offered appointment over and above advertised

posts for any reason, the services of such candidate

shall be dispensed with. However, he shall be

entitled to be appointed to the service/post, if any,

for which his name was originally recommended

by the Commission :

Provided further that no recovery of higher salary,

emoluments or any other financial benefits drawn

by such candidate as a result of his appointment in

excess of the advertised posts, shall be made from
C.W.P No. 17257 of 1999 ::3::

him but his pay shall be fixed in the scale of the

post to which he is found entitled for appointment

under this Act.

(4) The State Government may offer appointment to

the candidates to Haryana Civil Services (Executive

Branch) and Allied Services or Other Services, as the

case may be, to the extent of number of advertised posts

only. However, no candidate shall be offered

appointment even to the extent of number of advertised

posts, if his name is not recommended by the

Commission or if he does not fulfill the eligibility

condition laid down by the State Government for

appointment to that service/post by way of service rules,

regulations or executive instructions, as the case may

be.”

To counter this, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued

that the said Act was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

reported as Virender Singh Hooda and others vs State of Haryana and

another, 2005(1) SLR 10, wherein it was held as follows :-

“72. On the aforesaid analogy, I.A No.4 of 2004 in writ

petition no.215 of 2002 filed by Jagadish Sharma and

Mahavir Singh is allowed since the applicants are higher

in merit than Lalit Kumar and Virender Lather

aforenoted and also satisfy condition placed in Sandeep

Singh’s case by this Court. They are thus entitled to be

given similar treatment as Ajay Malik and Arvind
C.W.P No. 17257 of 1999 ::4::

Malhan in view of peculiar facts of their case. In this

view, the direction of the High Court in judgment dated

3rd July, 2004 in CWP No.7281 of 2000 also does not call

for any interference.”

In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed, in view of

the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda and

others’ case (supra) and Sandeep Singh’s case (supra). The respondents are

directed to give similar treatment to the petitioner as was granted to Ajay

Malik and Arvind Malhan, within three months from the receipt of a

certified copy of this order.

                                             ( AJAY TEWARI      )
February     19, 2009.                            JUDGE
`kk'