- (1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 12.1.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge allowing the petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge has directed the appellant-Haryana Public Service Commission to conduct a special examination for the writ petitioner for the purposes of considering her claim for selection to the post of Lecturer in Hindi.
(2.) Brief facts which have been unfolded in the pleadings of the parties are that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 is a Post graduate in Hindi with 56.6% marks and has also acquired the qualification of M.Phil in Hindi in the year 2009. In order to fill up the posts of Lecturer in Hindi (School Cadre), the appellant- Commission issued two advertisements bearing Nos. 3 and 4 on 17.7.2009. Advertisement No. 3 included posts meant for all categories of candidates like General, Scheduled Caste and others, whereas Advertisement No. 4 included only backlog of vacancies belonging to Scheduled Castes of Haryana. The writ petitioner respondent No. 1 belongs to Scheduled Caste category and while applying for the post of Lecturer in Hindi, she mentioned that her claim in respect of both Advertisement Nos. 3 and 4 be considered. The mistake was noticed by the appellant-Commission and the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1, vide communication dated 13.11.2010 (P-5), was asked to indicate as to which one of the two advertisements she would like to be considered. It was made clear that she could opt only against one of the two advertisements. She wrote back on 6.12.2010 that her application be considered against Advertisement No. 3 (P-6). Her grievance before the learned Single Judge was that she was not issued roll number in either of the two advertisements despite the fact that she had opted to take the examination against Advertisement No. 3. She also claimed that she personally approached the appellant-Commission to permit her to take the examination, which was to be conducted on 26.12.2010 whereas the other examination in respect of Advertisement No. 4 was to be conducted on 19.12.2010. However, she was apprised that the examination had already been held and consequently she was not able to take the examination. The writ petitioner respondent No. 1 sought direction from this Court that since her right of consideration has been prejudiced she should be given a special chance to compete.
(3.) Before the learned Single Judge the stand taken by the appellant-Commission was that the writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was required to give her option by 23.11.2010 whereas option was submitted by her on 6.12.2010 (P-6), which was beyond the date indicated in the communication dated 13.11.2010 (P-5). It was, thus, claimed by the appellant-Commission that on account of lapse on her part, she missed participation in the selection process. It was also clarified that Roll Number 796 for examination in respect of Advertisement No. 4, which was to be conducted on 19.12.2010, was sent to her under Postal Certificate dated 7.12.2010.;