Deepak Arya v. State Of Haryana And Another
!
"#$%$
&
' (
)#* +) $ ', '$
$ ----
Present:
Mr.
, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** , '$
. $/ +0
!" # $ " %&' &() *+, $-. &&(()// *+, $/. 0 $ ! Advertisement No.1 of 2023 dated 30.05.2023 for Group-C and Group-D posts. The last date for submission of application was 26.06.2023. The petitioner applied for both the posts in General Category. He, however, appeared in the written examination for Group-D post. The result was declared on 07.03.2024, but the petitioner did not fall in the selection zone. However, due to some errors, a revised result was published on 11.03.2024. Later on, respondent No.2-Commission declared an additional result vide notice
dated 10.08.2024. The petitioner had scored 75.71 marks in the written examination for Group-D post. It is further averred that since the result of Group-D post was declared prior to the result of Group-C post, many candidates joined Group-D post. However, later on, when they got selected for Group-C post, they resigned from the post of Group-D and joined the post of Group-C. Resultantly, more than 2000 advertised posts of Group-D remained vacant. It is further submitted that in case respondent No.2-Commission had declared the additional result or had prepared the waiting list to the extent of 10% of the posts as per rules, the petitioner would have secured the job. The petitioner made several representations, but all in vain. He further submits that as per instructions dated 20.01.1988 issued by respondent No.1-State, respondent No.2-Commission is duty bound to prepare waiting list up to 10% of the advertised posts, however, respondent No.2-Commission has not adhered to the said instructions and did not prepare the waiting list as per law.
Mr. Tapan Kumar, DAG, Haryana! 1 0 2 " 2 " ! 2 $ !1 ! 0 !3 4 ! + 2"!5" " 2
" $ " ! 1 " " /, '$
0
+.$