Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puneet Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 19 April, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
110+112 Decided on :19.04.2024
110- CWP-8561-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052493
PUNEET KUMAR .PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . . RESPONDENTS
112- CWP-8565-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052499
RAO PANKAJ .PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS . . . RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
PRESENT: Mr. Rajat Mor, Advocate for the petitioners
in both cases.
Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate and
Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate for respondent No. 2
in both cases.
****
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, both the above mentioned writ petitions are being disposed of as both the writ petitions involve the same question of 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 17:49:11 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052493 CWP-8561-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052493 CWP-8565-2024(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:052499 law on similar facts.
2. In the present writ petitions, the challenge is to the order dated 28.02.2024 (Annexure P-9) by which, the claim of the petitioners to claim eligibility to compete for the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture and equivalent (Administrative Cadre) Group A as advertised by the respondents vide Advertisement No. 13 of 2023 dated 18.02.2023 (Annexure P-1), has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite the fact that the petitioners have been shown their eligibility, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that the experience which the petitioners have to their credit either does not fulfill the criteria of Agriculture Research or Extension.
4. Notice of motion.
5. Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2-Commission and submits that before similar issue as involved in the present petitions has already dealt with by this Court while passing order in CWP-8210-2024 titled as Rahul Hans and another v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 15.04.2024. The said writ petition was filed by the similarly situated candidates and keeping in the view the statement of the respondents-Commission that the claim of all the candidates have been decided keeping in view the advise/recommendation of the experts, this Court has passed a detailed order dismissing the said writ petition. Learned counsel for the respondents-commission further submits that the question of law, raised in the present petition is covered by the said judgment passed in Rahul Hans' s case (Supra).
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to dispute 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 17:49:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052493 CWP-8561-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052493 CWP-8565-2024(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:052499 the fact that the grievance raised in the present petition is akin to one raised in Rahul Hans' s case (Supra).
7. Keeping in view the above and the reasons given in Rahul Hans' s case (Supra), the present petition is also dismissed in the same terms and conditions as passed in Rahul Hans' s case (Supra).
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the contrary stands have been taken by the respondents-commission while passing order as the experience as Senior Technical Assistance while working in the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University has been accepted in one case whereas, the same has been rejected in other case.
9. Upon this, learned counsel for the respondents-Commission submits that he has a specific instructions from Ms. Anju, Assistant, HPSC that the same was inadvertent and the experience of the petitioners in CWP No.8561 of 2024 qua the post of Technical Assistant in the Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University has been treated to be valid experience but as the same is of less than 5 years which is the requirement of advertisement dated 18.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) , the said petitioner has been declared as ineligible fort the post in question. 10 Keeping in view the said explanation given by the learned counsel for the respondents-Commission recorded herein above, the grievance being raised by the petitioners that contradictory decisions have been taken by the respondents-Commission stands clarified and the same does not need any interference at the hands of this Court.
11. Hence, the present petition is also dismissed in the same terms and conditions as passed in Rahul Hans' s case (Supra).
12. Pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 17:49:12 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052493 CWP-8561-2024 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:052493 CWP-8565-2024(O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:052499 of.
13. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
JUDGE
19.04.2024
Riya
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2024 17:49:12 :::