- (1.) The petitioner has sought a mandate to respondents No. 1 and 2 to appoint her on the post of scientific Engineer (Group 'B') as she had been selected by respondent No. 4, the Haryana Public Service Commission and quash the order contained in letter No. 66/14/91-79SI, dated January 10, 1991, by which one post of Scientific Engineer (Group-B) was taken out of the purview of Haryana Public Service Commission, in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The facts:- Haryana Public Service Commission (the Commission, for short) invited applications for recruitment to two posts of Scientific Engineer (Group-B) in the Science and Technology Department, Haryana, in the year 1989. Pursuant to the advertisement 11 applications, including that of the petitioner, and Rai Parakash- respondent No. 3, were received in the Commission's office. The Commission summoned these candidates for interview and after interviewing them selected the petitioner and Shri Rajvir Singh. It recommended Sh. Rajvir Singh and the petitioner for appointment to the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government Haryana Department of Science and Technology, vide letter No. RG9/85/6507, dated October 26, 1990. Appointment letter was issued to Shri Rajvir Singh, but not to the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 was working against one of the posts of Scientific Engineer (Group- B) on ad hoc basis. He moved this Court through a writ petition for a direction to the State of Haryana for regularisation of his services in the light of the judgment rendered in the case popularly known as Piara Singh's case (1988(4) SLR 736) and this Court by its order dated October 31,1990 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the State Government to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within six months and ordered that status quo in service be maintained. The representation of respondent No. 3 was processed by the Government of Haryana and. even the advice of Deputy Legal Remembrancer-cum-Deputy Secretary, Haryana was sought, who advised the Department that the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission were valid for a particular duration, unless the time is extended by the State Government and the recommendee had no right for an offer of appointment. He, however, advised that one of the posts of scientific Engineer (Group B) could not be taken out of the purview of the Public Service Commission and there was no valid ground for refusal to offer of appointment to the petitioner.
(3.) The facts as found established on records in unmistakable terms suggest that the State of Haryana and the Department of Science and Technology have not acted fairly. The Commission had advertised two posts of Scientific Engineers (Group B) and the petitioner's name was placed at serial No. 2 of the merit list. Respondent No. 3 applied for one of such posts. His claim was duly considered by the Commission, but he was not selected. The obvious inference is that the candidates who were not selected by the Commission for appointment were not found fit. The petitioner has averred in para No. 6 of the writ petition that respondent No. 3 applied for the post of Scinetific Engineer (Group-B) and competed along with her, but he was not found fit for selection by the Commission. It will be useful to reproduce the relevant averments made in paragraph 6 of the petition:- "xx xx x The respondent No. 3 also applied in pursuance to Annexure P-1 and competed along with the petitioner for the abovesaid two posts but he was not found fit and was not selected for appointment to the post of Scientific Engineer." In the corresponding reply to paragraph 6, respondents no. 1 and 2 have stated thus:- "It is further stated that the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 was not fit is not admitted." The reply to this paragraph obviously suggests that the State of Haryana and the Director, Science and Technology Department, did not want to admit even the undisputed facts. The persons who have not been selected are obviously rejected by the Commission, but respondents No. 1 and 2 do not want to admit this fact probably for reasons which are unjustified.;