JUDGMENT :

SUDHIR MITTAL, J.

1. The State Government and its functionaries always complain that pendency in Courts is on the rise and that steps need to be taken to reduce the same. The blame is laid at the doorstep of the Judiciary, without realising, that pendency in Courts is contributed to the maximum level by its own actions. In the present case, there is a binding precedent of a Division Bench of this Court, covering the question of law arising in the present petition, however, the same has been ignored. Had the ratio of the binding precedent been taken into consideration, filing of this writ petition could have been obviated.

2. The question of law which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether upon improvement of marks of a particular qualification, the same shall relate back to the date of acquiring the said qualification or not? If yes, whether the petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Naib Tehsildar?

3. The facts are not in dispute and are briefly enumerated hereinafter. The Haryana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’) advertised 70 posts of Naib Tehsildar vide advertisement dated 23.0