IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3549-2025 Date of Decision: 10.02.2025 Uday Veer ......Petitioner(s)

Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: Mr. Kamal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to consider him for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) pursuant to Advertisement No.3 of 2016 dated 20.02.2016.

2. The petitioner claims that he had secured 90 marks in the written test and interview. He filed CWP-17475-2019 before this Court seeking direction to respondent to offer him appointment letter. The said petition was wrongly withdrawn. Learned counsel for the petitioner, faced with result of other candidates, made a statement that he does not press the petition. The result was revised arbitrarily and without any direction of the Court. The respondent in view of order dated 29.05.2024 in CWP-9702-2020 titled Sujata Rani and Ors vs State of Haryana and Ors has appointed few candidates who have secured lesser marks than him. He deserves appointment as candidates having lower marks have been appointed.

3. Petitioner has applied for the post of LDC under General Category. The respondent conducted written test which was followed by interview. The respondent declared final result on 08.06.2019 and submitted its recommendations to concerned department on 10.06.2019. On account of litigation which ensued between the parties, the respondent revised result on 06.01.2020, 08.05.2020 and 13.11.2020. On account of revision of result, few candidates who had already been appointed, came to be transposed to list of un- selected candidates. There were few candidates who had applied for the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). A litigation ensued between candidates, who were unsuccessful and had applied for UDC, and respondent-Commission. A single Judge Bench of this Court set aside selection process qua posts of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. The selected candidates preferred LPA-2310-2017 which came up for consideration before Division Bench of this Court. The said appeal was disposed of in the light of statement made by Advocate General of the State.

4. The candidates who were unsuccessful and had applied for the post of LDC followed suit of unsuccessful candidates for the post of UDC. Two sets of petitions of candidates for post of LDC came up for consideration before this Court. First set of petitions titled as Sujata Rani and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP-9702-2020 was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2024. This set of petitioners were claiming protection of their job because they had already been appointed in 2019 but had been transposed to list of unselected candidates on account of revision of result in 2020. This Court vide judgment dated 29.05.2024 protected interest of candidates who had already been selected subject to riders. The operative portion of Sujata Rani (supra) is reproduced as below:-

“13. Keeping in view the above, the present petitions are disposed of with a clear direction that the total number of posts advertised i.e. 964 will be filled up and not beyond and for filling up the posts, the revised merit list will be taken into consideration. The petitioners in all the petitions will be considered for appointment on the basis of the revised merit list against the posts lying vacant out of total advertised posts or will be allowed to continue in case, already working in pursuance to the initial merit list, in case they are accommodated against the vacant post, i.e. the post of Lower Division Clerk which could not be filled up out of total 964 posts advertised.

14. However, it may be noticed that in case, any of the petitioner is not adjusted, the same will not preclude the said candidate to avail appropriate remedy for the re