IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14057 OF 2006 DATE OF DECISION: February 25, 2008 Parties Name Raldu Ram ..PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Inder Pal Goyat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. D.A.G., Haryana, for respondent No. 1. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. By filing this writ petition, petitioner claims that directions be issued, to appoint him against the post of Light Motor Vehicle Driver(in short Driver), from the date, persons lower in merit to him were appointed against the above said posts. It is an admitted fact that vide advertisement dated November 20, 2003, respondent No. 2 advertised 81 posts of the Drivers. The petitioner belongs to S.C.-B category. Eight posts were reserved for the above said category. After completing necessary formalities, result was declared by the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner's name figured at Sr. No. 41 in the select list ( P-7). It is also an admitted fact that in his category , i.e., S.C. (B), the petitioner was at No. 1 in the merit list. It is also not disputed that respondent No. 2, after selection, sent his name for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14057 OF 2006 -2- appointment to a department, where post was not available. Again his name was sent to the Excise and Taxation Department, but the same was returned on the ground that no post was available. Thereafter many representations were made by the petitioner to get service. When he failed to get any relief, he came to this Court. In response to notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed. The factual position has not been disputed. It has only been said that as the post was not available, appointment was not given to the petitioner. As the facts were not clearly mentioned in the written-statement and the affidavit, on November 5, 2007, the State was directed to supply us the following information: “In consequent to the order dated 15.10.2007, State counsel has put on record additional affidavit. Even in that affidavit, position has not been made clear. State counsel is directed to put on record comparative merits of the candidates selected and also list of those who have been appointed on the basis of selection list prepared by the Commission.” In response to above order, additional affidavit of Shri P.D. Verma, Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, dated November 13, 2007, has been filed, which was taken on record. Two paragraphs (both numbered as 2) of the affidavit read thus: “2. That the petitioner namely Shri Raldu Ram Roll No. 1079 belongs to SC-B category and his name stands at Sr. No. 41 in the merit list. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 3 Shri Govind Ram, Roll No. 1475 (Merit No. 71) and Respondent CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14057 OF 2006 -3- No. 4 Shri Jitender Kumar, Roll No. 574 (Merit No. 52) are junior to the petitioner and they also belong to SC-B category. The Respondent No. 3 and 4 have been appointed in Excise & Taxation Department, Haryana and Development and Panchayat Department, Haryana, respectively on the post of Light Vehicle Driver (against Advt. No. 8/2003, Cat. No. 14). 2. That the petitioner namely Ruldu Ram s/o Shri Bhela Ram, VPO Bhabalpur, Distt. Hisar was selected for the post of Light Vehicle Driver in SC-B category under Roll No. 1079 against Advt. No. 8/2003, Cat No. 14 and his name was recommended to Excise & Taxation Department, Haryana vide Commission letter dated 6.12.2004 for appointment but the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana has returned the recommendation of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on the ground of non-availability of post of Light Vehicle Driver in SC-B category. Subsequently, his name was recommended to the Director, Higher Education, Haryana, against the post of Heavy Vehicle Driver, because the petitioner was also having Licence of Heavy Vehicle Driver. The Director, Higher Education, Haryana, has also returned the name of the petitioner vide letter dated 16.12.2004 on the ground that the posts are for Heavy Vehicle Driver and not for Light Vehicle Driver.” It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was at No. 1 in the merit CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14057 OF 2006 -4- list for the post reserved for SC-B category. Names of respondents No. 3 and 4 figured at Sr. Nos. 71 and 52 respectively in the merit list. It is not in dispute that one of them was adjusted in the Excise and Taxation Department and another in Development and Panchayats Department. Right of the petitioner, though higher in merit, has been negatived only on the ground that initially his name was sent to a Department, where no post was available. If that was so, when the intimation was received back by the Commission, it was its duty to recommend name of the petitioner against a post, which was available at the time of declaration of the result. In view of the facts, mentioned above, we feel that petitioner's justifiable claim has wrongly been declined. As per his merit list, the petitioner was entitled to get appointment as Driver. Otherwise also, respondent No. 4 was the last candidate selected against the post reserved for SC-B category. It has been brought to our notice that during pendency of this writ petition, respondent No. 4 has died. ( It has been so mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No. 3. In view of facts, mentioned above, this writ petition is allowed and respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as Driver against the post, which was earlier held by respondent No. 4 and fix his seniority as per norms. It is made clear that if on account of any hitch, it is not possible to adjust the petitioner against the post, referred to above, he be adjusted against any other post by terminating the service of the candidate, who was lower in merit to the petitioner and was appointed against the seats reserved for SC-B category. Needful be done within a period of three months. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14057 OF 2006 -5- Counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that for the period, the petitioner was kept out of service, he will not claim any financial benefits. However, he is entitled to get all notional benefits from the date when persons lower in merit to him were taken in service. We are of the view that the stand taken is perfectly justified and we order accordingly. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge ( Jaswant Singh) February 25, 2008. Judge DKC