Dismissed

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC17 May 2012CWP/2002/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a recruitment advertisement for Station Supervisor. The Court held that the petitioner was over the age limit and lacked required supervisory experience, making the advertisement cancellation lawful.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner was not eligible for the post due to age and lack of supervisory experience.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No. 2002 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

CWP No. 2002 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision : May 17, 2012

¶6

Naresh Kumar

¶7

.... PETITIONER Vs.

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

..... RESPONDENTS

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

¶11

Present : Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

¶13

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner applied in response to an advertisement dated 22.08.2007 (Annexure P-2) for appointment to the post of Station Supervisor. As per the advertisement, apart from the other qualifications, age for eligibility was prescribed as 18-40 years. When nothing was heard by the petitioner about the said selection process, in which the petitioner had applied, petitioner filed CWP No. 17123 of 2008 praying therein that the petitioner be called for interview to the post which he had applied. Response was not

¶15

CWP No. 2002 of 2011

¶16

¶17

received by the petitioner. The petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents-Haryana Staff Selection Commission, to decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance with the order passed by this Court, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, vide order dated 11.12.2008 informed the petitioner that the date for interview has not yet been fixed for the post of Station Supervisor, Transport Department and as and when the interview will be fixed for the said post, prior intimation in this regard will be provided to the eligible candidates by publishing a public notice in the leading newspapers. Thereafter, a public notice dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure P-10) was issued, wherein the Haryana Staff Selection Commission informed that consequent upon non-availability of eligible candidates, the advertisement stands cancelled. It is this public notice, which is challenged by the petitioner through the present writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the petitioner had contended on the last date of hearing i.e. 06.03.2012 that the petitioner was fully eligible for appointment to the post of Station Supervisor and despite he being available, the advertisement has been cancelled by the Commission, which is not sustainable. This Court, vide order dated 06.03.2012, had directed the respondents to file reply with regard to the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner as to the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post in question. In response thereto, an affidavit of Sh. P.D.Verma, Secretary, Haryana Staff Selection Commission, has been filed, in para-2 thereof, it is stated as follows:-

¶19

CWP No. 2002 of 2011

¶20

¶21

“2. That according to the Advt. No. 10/2007, dated 22.8.2007 (Annexure P-2) the eligibility of the candidate was required to be determined on the last date for receipt of the application form i.e. 21.9.2007 and that on this date the petitioner has attained the age of 43 years 11 months and 13 days as against the maximum upper age limit of 40 years for general category candidate i.e. the petitioner category. Therefore, the petitioner was overage on the cut off date. Furthermore, according to the clarification of the Transport Commissioner, Haryana dated 19.12.2007, only those candidates are eligible for the post of Station Supervisor who have experience of 5 years in supervisory capacity in Govt./Semi Govt. or Public Undertakings on Traffic side. The petitioner possesses the experience as Conductor which cannot be termed as a Supervisory capacity. Hence, the petitioner on both the counts i.e. on account of overage and not having experience in the supervisory capacity is not eligible for the post of Station Supervisor.”

¶22

In the light of the above affidavit, the petitioner being not eligible, cannot have any grouse against the cancellation of the advertisement as the said advertisement was cancelled only on the ground that no eligible candidate was available and, therefore, the process of selection could not proceed.

¶23

CWP No. 2002 of 2011

¶24

¶25

Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same

¶26

stands dismissed.

¶27

May 17, 2012 pj

¶28

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Narinder Vs State of Haryana

Raj Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sher Singh Vs the St of Hry & Anr.

Ishwar Singh Duhan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Umesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.