AJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks his appointment to the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer (for short "APRO"), which, according to him is lying vacant and for which he was one of the applicants. In all, 20 posts of APRO were advertised on 28.10.2008. These posts were bifurcated for various categories as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_391_LAWS(P&H)9_2011.htm</FRM>

(2.) As per the instructions and the conditions in the advertisement, children and grand-children of freedom fighters were to be considered to the extent mentioned in letter dated 26.7.1984. If the quota reserved for Ex-servicemen remained unfilled due to nonavailability of suitable Ex-servicemen or their dependents, then these posts were to be offered to the dependents of freedom fighters.

(3.) The petitioner applied for appointment in the reserved category of ESM general being a dependent of freedom fighter. Interview was conducted on 19.1.2010. In the result declared, the petitioner was shown in the waiting list under the seat reserved for dependents of freedom fighters. The petitioner has averred that there were three vacancies reserved for Ex-servicemen, which had been further bifurcated as noted above. Though one vacancy meant for ESM-Gen had been filled, but the post reserved for ESM BC-A and ESM BC-B had remained unfilled as no Ex-serviceman had joined against the said post. The petitioner, therefore, seeks his appointment in this category by taking support from the instructions dated 26.7.1980. As per the petitioner, the intention of the Government as per these instructions was to ensure that the dependents of the freedom fighters were appointed against the vacancies which could not be filled by quota of ESM or ESM BC category. Since the seats meant for ESM BC category had remained unfilled, the petitioner ought to be offered this post, he being the next meritorious candidate.