CWP no. 15452 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected case 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP no. 15452 of 2011 (O&M) Mahesh Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula through its Secretary ....Respondent 2. CWP no. 16458 of 2011 (O&M) Mahesh Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula through its Secretary ....Respondent Decided on : 14-11-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of two writ petitions bearing nos. 15452 of 2011 and 16458 of 2011. The petitioner is aggrieved when his candidature was cancelled by virtue of Annexure P-8 in CWP no. 16458 of 2011. According to clause 5 of the advertisement which is extracted herebelow incumbents who are applying against the posts meant for general category candidates were required to remit Rs. 500/- while obtaining the form while the candidates who are applying under BC/SC/ESM/PH CWP no. 15452 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected case 2 categories were required to remit only Rs. 125/-:- “5. For supply of application form and detailed information candidate may write to the Secretary, Haryana Public Service Commission, Bays No. 1-10, Block B, Sector 4, Panchkula by remitting Rs.500/- for candidates of General Category including dependent sons/daughters of ESM of Haryana and Rs.125/- for the candidates of SC/BC/ESM/PH (at least 40% disability) of Haryana.” The petitioner belonged to the SC category and was also a dependent of ex-serviceman and obtained a form by remitting Rs.125/- and applied for the said post. By virtue of Annexure P-8, the solitary reason for cancelling his candidature was that he had not remitted Rs.500/- and therefore he could not be considered against the post reserved for ex- serviceman category. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the insistence on this condition is arbitrary and the reservation to the post of ex- serviceman, even though horizontal in nature as per the observations of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in CWP no. 18738 of 2009 titled as Ajit Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others decided on 6.9.2011, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the right to be considered in view of the fact that said reservations were horizontal in nature intended to cut against vertical reservations. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench has observed as follows:- (i) The reservations for Physically Handicapped, Exservicemen, dependants of freedom fighters and women etc. are the horizontal reservations. CWP no. 15452 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected case 3 (ii) The candidates belonging to horizontal reservations will cut across the vertical reservations in the following manner: (a) Firstly the seats for Open Category candidates will be filled up on the basis of merit; (b) Secondly, the seats meant for vertical reservedcategories will be filled up on the basis of merit in their own quota; (c) Thirdly, the seats equal to the number of the candidates belonging to horizontal reserved category and also falling within vertical reserved category, shall stands consumed in the vertical reserved category. The candidate lower in vertical reserved category will make way for him; (d) Fourthly, if a candidate belonging to horizontal reserved category does not belong to any of categories of reservations, a candidate in the open category will make way for such reserved category so as to satisfy quota of the seats meant for the horizontal reserved category. (e) Lastly, in case of women candidates, who also fall within any one of special reservations or social reservations, such candidate shall be taken into consideration for determining the quota for both women and social reservations.” Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that the reservations to the posts of ex-serviceman were horizontal in nature but has contended that the petitioner was not denied to the right to be CWP no. 15452 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected case 4 considered against said post on this issue but was declined consideration only on the ground that he had not remitted an amount of Rs.500/- which was required. This Court on due consideration of the matter finds that the insistence of the respondents to deny the candidature to the petitioner and his right to be considered solely on the ground that he had not remitted Rs.500/- was not rational and at best can be termed to be arbitrary. The candidate who is desirous of an employment cannot be denied the valuable right of consideration to an equally valuable avenue for employment on grounds which are flimsy and defeatist. The petitioner could easily have been made to remit the remaining amount in the event of his fulfilling other qualifications but to deny him the right of consideration solely on the said ground would be completely arbitrary and unsustainable in the eyes of law. In CWP no. 15452 of 2011 the petitioner was granted the right of consideration and it was observed that his result would be kept in a sealed cover. The petitioner has since been considered for employment and interviewed and his result has been produced which reveals that he is far behind the zone of successful candidates who have been given the employment after having obtained 40 marks. The petitioner has obtained only 33 marks. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner has remained unsuccessful, no further indulgence can be given to him in the instant petitions which are dismissed. However, the impugned order Annexure P-8 in CWP no.16458 of 2011 is set aside for the reasons aforesaid. If the petitioner has any remaining grievance, he is at liberty to avail himself of CWP no. 15452 of 2011 (O&M) and other connected case 5 any other remedy available to him under the law. November 14, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge