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
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
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
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
