IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 03.03.2025 SUNIL KUMAR ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ.

****

Present: Mr. Sumit Sangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3.

Mr. Balwinder Sangwan, Advocate and Mr. Krishna Maurya, Advocate for respondent No.4-Haryana Public Service Commission.

****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL)

Challenge in the present petition is to the result dated 23.01.2024 of the Subject Knowledge Test as well as final result dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail (Male) (Group-B) in Jail Department, Haryana against Advertisement No.10 of 2023 dated 08.02.2023 for the General (ESM) Category. A further prayer has also been made for setting aside the speaking order dated 30.09.2024 (Annexure P-12) whereby the respondent-Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as 'HPSC') rejected the claim of the petitioner for being called in for interview.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-

HPSC advertised the posts of Deputy Superintendent, Jail Department, Haryana vide Advertisement No.10 of 2023 dated 08.02.2023. Out of the total two posts advertised, one post was for General (ESM) category while the other was reserved for EWS category of Haryana. The opening date for submission of online application form was 13.02.2023 while the closing date for submission of online application form was 03.03.2023. The petitioner being eligible under the category 'General (ESM)' applied for the same and fulfilled all the prescribed formalities. The admit card was issued to the petitioner for appearing in the screening test to be held under Roll No.40070, which he qualified to be eligible to further participate in the Subject Knowledge Test, vide result declared on 13.12.2023. Another admit card was issued to the petitioner for appearing in the Subject Knowledge Test against Roll No.306. The petitioner also appeared in the said test held on 10.01.2024, however, the Roll Number of the petitioner did not figure in the result that was so declared. Eventually, final result of the selection was published by the respondent-HPSC on 20.02.2024 after holding interview on the same date in which the candidates at Roll No.302 and 304 were recommended. The roll number wise result was uploaded by the respondent-HPSC in July 2024, wherefrom it transpired that out of the total four candidates, the petitioner had secured 73 marks in Subject Knowledge Test and was hence in the overall grading at Sr. No.3. He contends that as per rule, two candidates (i.e. double of the vacancies advertised) were required to be called for interview hence only Paramjeet (89 marks) and Surjit (74 marks)

were called for interview under General (ESM) category. Surjit Singh, however, did not appear for the interview and only Paramjeet Singh appeared for the same. He submits that as per the equity and the rules, since two candidates were required to be called for one post and as the person at No.2 had chosen not to appear for the interview, the respondent-HPSC was required to invite the petitioner, but the needful was not done. Hence, a representation dated 19.07.2024 was submitted by the petitioner giving details of the aforesaid developments. He further submits that even the remaining candidate i.e. Paramjeet did not join the post in question since he was selected as A-Class Naib Tehsildar under Roll No.1059, pursuant to the result dated 18.06.2024 declared by the respondent-HPSC for the HCS (Executive Branch) and other Allied Services Examination – 2023. The post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail (Male) under General (ESM) thus remained vacant.

The petitioner hence approached this Court vide CWP No.20093 of 2024 for the said relief which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2024 directing the respondent-HPSC to decide his rep