Important Point
The Service Selection Board should not make a list in excess of existence of vacancies and further the names of the person in the list be considered in order of their merit.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Earlier Judgment-Becoming final-Creating illegality and irregularities on the future generation of candidates aspiring for a job of clerk-Full Bench giving directions-Challenged-Affecting persons who have already served for more than 9 years-Proper course-High Court’s directions are substituted by the Supreme Court’s directions.
       Held : Bearing in mind all the relevant facts and circumstances and bearing in mind the equity in favour of those who have already been appointed from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 and have served for more than 9 years we issue the following directions in substitution of the directions made by the High Court in the impugned judgment:-
        (1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 will not be annulled.
        (2) The last person who is stated to have been appointed being at serial No. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for appointment to the post of clerk if there exists any vacancy for them.
        (3) The vacancy in this context would mean the vacancies which were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date then no further appointment would be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 notwithstanding the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari’s case.
        (4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned then the appointments from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list.
        (5) We strongly depricate the practice of selecting and preparing an unusual large list compared to the vacancy position and the State Government should either amend the Recruitment Rules in that respect and till then should issue positive administrative instructions giving the right to the Selection Board to select only some persons in excess than the requisition for which the Board is going to select people.
        (6) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the State Govt. in not assailing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari’s case and now coming up before us making submissions that the judgment is practically incapable of being implemented.
       These appeals are disposed of accordingly. But in the circumstances there will be no order as to costs. (Para 6)

Judgment

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-Application for permission to file Special Leave Petition is granted.

2. Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition No. 14660 of 1995.

3. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

4. In all these cases the legality of the Full Bench judgment dated 13th July, 1994, passed by a bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the directions given thereunder are under challenge. These cases depict a sordid state of affair in the State of Haryana in relation to recruitment to the post of clerks and the State all along has been a mute spectator. As it appears from the records and the different documents appended thereto in the year 1987 there existed some vacancies in the post of clerks in the State of Haryana and the impugned judgment indicates that the Service Selection Board had received requisitions from different departments of the Government for a total number of 662 posts. The advertisement which had been issued inviting applications from the candidates, however, did not indicate the number of vacancies. The Service Selection Board conducted the written test and thereafter selected 5373 candidates and prepared a list of those candidates on 15.10.1989. In accordance with the prescribed procedure from out of the said list the Selection Board recommended the names of 1962 candidates to different departments; but while making such recommendation the candidates were not sent in accordance with their merits but at random. After appointment of these 1692 candidates recommended by the Service Selection Board when persons occupying higher position in the merit list did not receive any letter of appointment they approached the High Court in a Writ Petition which was registered as C.W.P. No. 8187 of 1990 (Sudesh Kumari v. State of Haryana). The aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court and it was directed that without disturbing the appointments already made, all future appointments shall be made from the same list and the selection list which was prepared by the Service Selection Board on 15th October, 1989 would not lapse. This direction the High Court gave irrespective of instructions to the contrary had been issued by the State of Haryana keeping the life of a Select List alive for one year. The High Court also came to the conclusion that all persons who are higher in merit as compared to the last person who might have been appointed as a clerk are entitled to be appointed. In course of hearing we had been informed that the last person who had been appointed from the list prepared on 15th October, 1989 was serial No. 4645. The State did not challenge the aforesaid decision of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari’s case and, therefore, right accrued in favour of the remaining persons from the list prepared on 15th October, 1989 who had not been appointed and the list continued to remain valid. This judgment of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari’s case was later on followed in few other cases of the said Punjab and Haryana High Court. Some unsuccessful candidates approached the High Court challenging the validity of the list itself which was prepared by the Service Selection Board on 15th October, 1989 on several grounds including the ground that as against the requisition of the different departments for 662 posts of clerk the Selection Board could not have selected and prepared a list of 5373 candidates as well as on the ground that the Select List lapses after expiry of one year. When this Writ Petition was placed before a Division Bench and they were confronted with the earlier decision of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari’s case they thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a Full Bench and the Full Bench after considering all the points raised delivered the judgment on July 13, 1994. The conclusions of the Full Bench and the directions given are extracted hereunder :-

(i) The Selection Board cannot make the selection in excess of the number of posts for which a requisition h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 1008

Important PointThe Service Selection Board should not make a list in excess of existence of vacancies and further the names of the person in the list be considered in order of their merit.

Important Point
The Service Selection Board should not make a list in excess of existence of vacancies and further the names of the person in the list be considered in order of their merit.