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'