Judgment Mr. Arun Monga, J. Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 10 marks towards socio economic criteria as per advertisement No.10/2019 dated 15.06.2019 (Annexure P-1) for the post of Junior Engineer. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per final result, the cut off in EWS category for the post of Junior Engineer is 60 marks. Petitioner has secured 53 marks in written examination. He claims that if he is awarded 10 marks towards socio economic criteria, he will then be entitled for being considered for selection as per his merit based on aggregate of 63 marks. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argues that, concededly, petitioner while applying online application, had stated therein that age of his deceased father was 30 years and the petitioner was 5 years at the time of his father’s death. It was also clearly mentioned that no person in his family was, is or has been a regular employee in any Department/ Board/Corporation/ Company/ Statutory Body/ Commission/ Authority of Government of Haryana or any other State Government or Government of India. Accordingly, he canvasses that as per clause 2.3 of the advertisement, petitioner was entitled for 5 marks towards as no one in his family being in Government service and additional 5 marks for having lost his father when he was merely 5 years old. He submits that while 5 marks have been rightly awarded for no family members being in the Government service. However, additional 5 marks towards his father being 30 years at the time of his death and petitioner being 5 years have been wrongly denied. 5. Learned State counsel argues that the requisite information, which is now been relied in the petition, was not provided by the petitioner or was otherwise not available with the respondents. 6. The argument of learned state counsel, to say the least, flies in the face of reply of respondents, appending therewith the relevant record. 7. Next argument of the learned state counsel that mandamus cannot be issued since the petitioner had not approached the respondents prior to filing of the petition, is also legally not sustainable. 6. The argument of learned state counsel, to say the least, flies in the face of reply of respondents, appending therewith the relevant record. 7. Next argument of the learned state counsel that mandamus cannot be issued since the petitioner had not approached the respondents prior to filing of the petition, is also legally not sustainable. Petitioner has specifically stated in Para Nos.12 to 14 of his writ petition that he has been running from pillar to post to get the benefit of his being fatherless and being less than 5-year old at the time of death of his father. Having failed to get any response, he approached this Court. There is no response to the specific averment though ashort affidavit has been filed. Even otherwise, aforementioned argument is being noted for the purpose of rejection. It is not a sine qua non for a litigant to first approach by way of a representation to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, as is being argued. Mandamus can be sought without filing any prior representation provided, of course, there is any alleged violation of mandate of law by an erring official of the State. 8. Adverting to main issue in hand, ostensible reason of not according additional 5 marks to the petitioner on account of death of his father [as per sub clause b (iii) of clause 2.3] is that the petitioner, at the time of filling up his application form had not declared whether he is the first or second child and he did not append the prescribed proforma of declaration of being fatherless. 8. Per contra, from perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, it is borne out that the stand taken by the respondents in their reply contradicts Annexure Annexure R-1/1 and R-1/2 appended therewith which were to the knowledge of the respondents at the time of rejection of claim of the petitioner. From collective reading thereof, what emerges is that concededly respondents were aware that petitioner is born on 18.10.1995 and is fatherless. As on the date of death of his father i.e. 18.04.2001, petitioner was about 5 years and 6 months old. 9. Merely because the petitioner opted to answer by saying “yes” to questions No. (ii) and (iii), viz. From collective reading thereof, what emerges is that concededly respondents were aware that petitioner is born on 18.10.1995 and is fatherless. As on the date of death of his father i.e. 18.04.2001, petitioner was about 5 years and 6 months old. 9. Merely because the petitioner opted to answer by saying “yes” to questions No. (ii) and (iii), viz. ii) “If the applicant is first or the second child and his father had died before attaining the age of 42 years; or; iii) if the applicant is the first or the second child and his father had died before the applicant had attained the age of 15 years” would in the worst case, result in an adverse inference, in as much as, he is to be treated as second child and not the first. 10. In the premise, let us now apply the Criteria envisaged in clause 2.3 of the advertisement as per aforesaid adverse inference. It is not disputed that petitioner is indeed second child. If an applicant, being second child was less than 15 years on the date of death of his father or if his father had died before attaining the age of 42 years, 5 additional marks are to be awarded to him. On both counts, petitioner qualifies for getting additional 5 marks i.e. a). being second child less than 15 years and b). father being less than 42 years at the time of death. 11. Being so, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has been wrongly denied additional 5 marks. Resultantly, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to accord admissible benefit to the petitioner for being fatherless and being second child aged less than 15 years when his father died at the age of 30 years. Accordingly, in terms of clause 2.3 of sub clause (ii) of the advertisement, he be given the benefit of additional 5 marks qua the same. His result be modified to that extent and his merit position be re-determined. Subject to the vacancy being available as on today, he be accorded the benefit of his re-determined merit. In case, there is no vacancy available, a supernumerary post be created to be adjusted against future vacancy. 12. Allowed in aforesaid terms.