JUDGMENT

Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J. (Oral)

By this common order, this Court proposes to dispose of the above noted 52 writ petitions as common question of law is involved in this bunch of writ petitions.

2. In brief, the facts, as are being culled out from the writ petitions, are that the process of recruitment for filling up 5000 posts of Male Constable (General Duty); 1147 posts of Female Constable (General Duty); 500 posts of Male Constable in Indian Reserve Battalions (IRBs); 400 posts of Sub-Inspector (Male) and 63 posts of Sub-Inspector (Female) was initiated by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission vide advertisement No.3/2018 dated 16.04.2018. The petitioners herein, seeking appointment, applied in terms of the said advertisement. On the basis of documents uploaded, the petitioners sought 5 marks, which were to be accorded under the Miscellaneous (10% weightage) Category (a)(ii). The said advertisement clearly specified that 5 marks would be given to a candidate, who is an orphan or a widow; a candidate being an orphan would be entitled to 5 marks in case the applicant is a first or second ward of the deceased, whose father died before completion of 42 years of age; if the applicant is first or second ward and his/her father had died before his/her completing 15 years of age. After the written examination was undertaken and the candidates cleared PST and PMT, the result was prepared and published.

It would be pertinent to note that since final detailed result had not been uploaded on the website of the respondent-Commission, certain candidates filed CWP No.11335 of 2019, in which orders were passed, consequent to which, the detailed marks were uploaded. The petitioners herein on scrutiny of the said result found out that the marks under the 'orphan category' had either been wrongly given or not given, which grievance led to filing of the instant writ petitions.

3. Mr. B. S. Rana, learned Senior Advocate arguing on behalf of all the petitioners would submit that the respondents have acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner while giving marks to the candidates under the orphan category. It is argued that the petitioners herein have been denied the opportunity of getting selected to the post of Male Constable (General Duty), Female Constable (General Duty), Male Constable in IRBs, Sub-Inspector (Male) and Sub- Inspector (Female) on account of wrong award of marks under the orphan category to candidates, who were not entitled. The petitioners have been deprived of the chance of earning their livelihood.

4. During the course of proceedings in this Court, there were deliberations on the term 'orphan', as to candidate which would be deemed to be an orphan, whether the orphan would be a candidate whose both parents have expired or whether a candidate whose mother was surviving but father has expired would also be considered as an orphan. Though there were deliberations on this question, however, the matter was never concluded.

5. Learned Senior Advocate arguing for the petitioners laid great stress on the fact that the petitioners had been denied additional 5 marks despite they were entitled to the same being orphan i.e. first or second ward of the deceased, whose father died before completion of 42 years of age and first or second ward and his/her father had died before his/her completing 15 years of age. It is also argued that certain candidates, whose mother was alive, have been denied such