The central legal point established in the judgment is that compliance with administrative instructions applicable at the relevant time is crucial in determining the validity of selections and benefits, especially in the context of Ex-Servicemen.

JUDGMENT

Arun Monga, J. (Oral) - Vide this common order and judgment, bunch of abovementioned four writ petitions is being disposed of, since not only the facts are similar but the law points and the issue raised therein are also common. For brevity, recitals are taken from CWP-19572-2016.

2. Succinct factual background first. Vide an advertisement No.8/2013, published on 20.02.2014, respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission invited applications from the eligible candidates for 55 posts of the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Exams-2009. Petitioner being an Ex-Serviceman (Ex. Flight Lieutenant from Indian Air Force, having served from 08.01.2001 to 07.01.2007) applied for one post reserved under the Ex-Serviceman category. He successfully cleared the preliminary examination and then participated in the second stage of the selection, i.e., Mains examination. Four candidates, including the petitioner, were declared successful for the third stage of selection process, i.e., viva-voce/ interview. Petitioner asserts that entire process of written examination followed by interviews was conducted in a very secret manner without disclosing the names of the candidates. Final result dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure P-3) was declared and petitioner then came to know that respondent No.3-Anil Kumar Yadav was selected in the Ex-Serviceman category. At the time of interview, respondent No.3 had introduced himself to the petitioner as Sub Inspector, Economic Offence Wing, Haryana Police, after rendering service in Indian Air Force, basis which, he availed benefit of being an Ex-Serviceman qua the post of S.I. in the Haryana Police. Grievance of the petitioner is that, once respondent No.3 had availed the benefit of ExServiceman for appointment on one civil post, he is per se disentitled to the same/similar benefit all over again, for any fresh appointment.

3. I have heard competing contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Aforesaid bunch of petitions, assailing the selection in the category of ex-servicemen, are all on the substantial ground that whether the State Government/ HPSC could have given benefit of belonging to ExServiceman to those candidates who had once earlier taken the benefit of employment and thereby negating the right of the petitioners who were the first time applicants to seek job under the Ex-Servicemen category?

5. Fact that the petitioners though are less meritorious, but having remained unsuccessful, they have challenged the result on the ground, as already noted above, are not disputed.

6. In fact, controversy involved herein along with succinct facts noted therein has been summed up in order dated 21.09.2016 passed by my learned Brother Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (seized of the matter at the relevant time) in following words:

'Advertisement No.8/2013 was published on 20.02.2014 by the Haryana Public Service Commission inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to 55 posts of Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services. One post of HCS (Executive Branch) was reserved for the ESM Category.

The selection process has culminated in declaration of result by the Commission on 02.09.2016. Respondent No.3, namely, Anil Kumar Yadav has been recommended for appointment to HCS (Executive Branch) against the solitary vacancy reserved for ESM Category.

The petitioner herein who had also subjected himself to the process of selection and against the ESM Category assails the selection and recommendation of the HPSC and respondent No.3 on the ground that respondent No.3 had already availed of the reservation provided for Ex-servicemen at the stage of his recruitment and appointment to the post of ASI in the Haryana Police and was promoted and presently working as Sub Inspector. Counsel would argue that it would not be open for respondent No.3 to avail of such reservation twice over and in response to the advertisement dated 20.02.2014.