Shakti Singh (42), who currently serves as a regional officer in the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, had appeared for the HCS (Executive Branch) Examination in 2004, conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) during the Chautala regime. (Photo special arrangement)
After 21 years of legal battle, a Haryana engineer, now 42 years old, is set to be elevated as an officer of the Haryana Civil Services (HCS), following the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which gave a verdict in his favour.
Shakti Singh, currently serving as a regional officer with the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB), had appeared for the HCS (Executive Branch) Examination in 2004 — during the Chautala regime — conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC).
You’ve Read Your Free Stories For Now
Sign up and keep reading more stories that matter to you.
Singh said, “I was selected and formally recommended by the Commission for appointment, but the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct ahead of the 2005 Assembly elections stalled the process. With the change of a government, the matter was referred to the State Vigilance Bureau after allegations of irregularities in recruitment, leaving my appointment in limbo.”
“However, determined to secure my position, I approached the high court and pursued my case relentlessly for nearly two decades.”
Citing a recent high court order appointing one Surender Lather in a similar case, Singh filed an application, seeking the disposal of his petition, arguing his case was squarely covered by the judgment in Lather’s case. The court accepted his plea after the state counsel corroborated the submissions made on his behalf, paving the way for his long-awaited appointment.
Allowing Singh’s application on November 7 this year, the high court also reproduced a key portion of its recent judgment in Lather’s case: “In the present case, it could not be disputed that the present appellant (Lather) was duly selected and was recommended by the Haryana Public Service Commission for being appointed. It is the State that did not give an appointment to the present appellant by giving the reason as has been detailed hereinabove. However, for the same reason, the respondent State had chosen to give appointments to five other persons. It was open for the State to have formed a criterion based on which it could treat a candidate as a tainted or innocent/untainted candidate. Once the State had made a criterion and had chosen to treat candidates in whose answer sheet the examiner had used two pens as untainted candidates and had further chosen to give appointment to them, then all the candidates who were similarly placed were also required to be treated in the same manner, and the State could not have adopted a pick-and-choose policy. It was not the case of the State that there was any legal bar or that the appointment of the appellant was in violation of any rule.”