LPA No.8 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No.8 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.02.2010 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants. Versus Lajvir Singh ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the appellants. Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitender Bedwal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No.15. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.11.2005 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner. LPA No.8 of 2008 2 2. Brief facts of the present case are that pursuant to advertisement No.5 issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as HPSC) for appointment to the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other allied services for the year 1980-81, the petitioner applied in the category of military personal. Last date for submission of application form was 10.11.1980. 3. The Haryana Public Service Commission recommended 119 names instead of 120 vide letter dated 30.5.1983. However, as per the government order dated 24.11.1962, it was mandatory for the HPSC to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment against the Haryana Civil Services (EB) as one vacancy reserved for the said post, was intimated by the State government to the Commission on 9.11.1982. 4. Initially petitioner was appointed as Excise and Taxation Officer vide letter dated 23.2.1984 and he joined as such on 7.3.1984. The petitioner made representation with the request that although the post of HCS (EB) was not reserved for ex-servicemen yet it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that number of posts for each category was liable to variation. Representation of the petitioner was accepted and allocation of the petitioner was revised from ETO to HCS (EB) vide Annexure P-7. He was given appointment in HCS (EB) vide Annexure P-9. Since the petitioner was selected in the batch of 1980, he should have been granted seniority as per the merit list prepared by the HPSC in the examination held pursuant to advertisement of the year 1980. However, the government has wrongly allocated the petitioner 1985 vacancy. Thereafter, the petitioner filed writ petition seeking mandamus commanding the respondents to allocate him the vacancy of the year 1980 instead of 1985 as Haryana Civil LPA No.8 of 2008 3 Services (EB). The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 16.11.2005. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal has been filed by the appellant. While allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “It is apparent from the records that mistake was even realised by the State Government and conscious decision was taken on 25.4.1985 (Annexure P-7), vide which it was decided that the joint merit list of all 25 candidates be obtained from the Commission, for the purpose of fixation of their inter-se seniority. It was further decided that one post of HCS (Executive Branch) reserved for ex-servicemen category which was not filled up when result of the petitioner was declared and was re-advertised for the year 1982 batch, be withdrawn from the Commission. It is very surprising that action, as decided, was not taken and subsequently without assigning any reason, representation of the petitioner was rejected on 10.12.1985 (Annexure P/7A). Again, when petitioner represented, the same was accepted vide order dated 27.5.1987 (Annexure P/9), however, he was adjusted against the vacancy which had fallen vacant in the year 1985. From this, it is apparent that if the decision which was taken in the year 1985 (Annexure P/7) had been implemented, petitioner would have been given his due as he was selected in the batch of 1980 and there was no justification with respondent No.1 to adjust him against the post which had fallen vacant in the year 1985.” 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the LPA No.8 of 2008 4 record. 6. Admittedly, the posts were advertised which had fallen vacant in the year 1980. Pursuant to advertisement of the year 1980, the petitioner was declared selected and was given appointment. This is also undisputed that the petitioner was never selected pursuant to advertisement of the year 1985. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled for allocation of the vacancy of the year 1980 instead of 1985. Hence, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and calls for no interference. 7. Dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 03.02.2010 sk. LPA No.8 of 2008 5