- (1.) By this common judgment, four Civil Writ Petitions bearing Nos. 2739 of 2001, 11278 of 1999, 11589 of 2000 and 5164 of 2001 will be decided.
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the facts can be taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2739 of 2001 preferred by Subhash Chander against Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as "the Board").
(3.) On 16.7.1991, the Board advertised 11 posts of Assistant Secretaries. Out of this six posts were for General category, three posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste category, and two posts were reserved for Backward Class category. Petitioners in all the four writ petitions applied for these posts. They were interviewed from 29.10.2001 to 31.10.1991. 16 persons were selected. A grievance was made that some of the selected persons were not eligible and were not possessing requisite qualification. It was stated that they were lacking three years experience in Government or Semi Government Organization. Unsuccessful candidates preferred writ petitions in this Court. Civil Writ Petition No. 14229 of 1993 was preferred by Subhash Chander and the same was decided along with a bunch of 12 writ petitions. A judgment was pronounced in a case of Om Parkash & Others v. The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 1465 of 1992). The writ petition was decided on 2.1.1995 and learned Single Bench of this Court passed the following order :- "I have heard counsel for the parties. While it is the prerogative of the employer to lay down qualifications for a post, it appears to be equally clear that such qualification must have a reasonable relation to the job requirements and only those who fulfill the prescribed qualification should be appointed. In the present case, the advertisement specifically provided that the candidate must have besides the academic qualification three year's experience in a Govt. Office or a semi-government body. A person who did not fulfill this qualification should obviously not be eligible to be considered for appointment. Further, the report sent by the Assistant Registrar clearly shows that the Selection Committee had considered person who did not actually fulfill this qualification. In this situation one view can be that the whole selection is vitiated. However, as has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, it may not be fair to upset the entire selection on the basis of the report of the Assistant Registrar especially when it has even been stated that the selected candidates had been given an opportunity to put forth their view point. In this situation, it appears to be just and proper to remit the matter to the Chief Administrator of the Board. Who will examine the factual position with regard to each selected candidate in writing. If on consideration of the material as may be produced by the petitioner, the Chief Administrator finds that there are doubts regarding the eligibility of one or the other countries, he would give an opportunity to that candidate to show that he fulfilled the qualifications. Thereafter, the respondent shall decide the matter finally by passing a speaking order. In case it is found that a person who did not fulfill the prescribed qualification has been selected, the selection and appointment of such persons shall stand quashed. The needful shall be done within three months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order".;