JUDGMENT

R. B. MISRA, J— The main question for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether a person selected by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for direct appointment to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police has got an unfettered right to be appointed on the basis of the recommendation made by the said Board.

2. The material facts to bring out the point in controversy are as follows. On 31st of March, 1978 the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, respondent No. 2, sent a requisition to the Subordinate Service Selection Board (for short, the Board), respondent No. 3, to select and recommend 7 suitable persons for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. While the matter was pending consideration 50 more posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police became available and, therefore, the Board was requested to recommend 57 suitable persons for these posts. The appellants along with many others were interviewed and physically tested on various dates ranging from 24th of October, 1978 to 6th of February, 1979. Later on after the interviews were over but before the select list could be finalised by the Board the Inspector General of Police vide his letter dated 31st of August, 1979 requested the Board to recommend 170 more persons in addition to 57 already under consideration in anticipation of further vacancies likely to occur as a result of expected reorganisation of the police force. In that connection a proposal for the disbandment of the Punjab Armed Police Battalion and instead creation of some additional posts for the District Police, had already been submitted. Thus, in all 227 candidates were to be recruited by the Board for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police. The Board, however, recommended a panel of 144 candidates on 22nd of December. 1979.

3. It appears that the proposal for disbandment of the Punjab Armed Police Battalion and creation of additional posts in the districts referred to above was turned down by the Government and, therefore, the anticipated 170 temporary vacancies of Assistant Sub-Inspectors against direct recruitment quota could not be available. Out of the earlier 57 posts, however, 9 were offered to the wards of the deceased police officers in accordance with the Punjab Government instructions regarding priority appointments issued vide letter No. 80(GOI)-SII(3)/73/12092 dated 18th April. 1973, The remaining 48 posts were offered to the candidates recommended, by the Board in order of merit determined by the Board. Since the remaining candidates recommended by the Board pursuant to the latter requisition were not appointed as there were no vacancies, the disgruntled candidates filed two petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court.

4. The stand of the petitioners in the two petitions was :

(a) that the vacancies had already been communicated to the Board and it was on that basis that the Board had recommended their names for appointment and the State was bound to appoint them on the basis of the recommendation of the Board;

(b) that the State was bound to follow the Punjab Police Rules and under rule 12.3 twenty-five per cent of the posts in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors are to be filled in by direct recruitment and the remaining seventy-five per cent are to be filled by promotion;

(c) that the State adopted a device of making ad hoc appointment of the Assistant Sub-Inspectors, by posting Head-Constables as Assistant Sub-Inspectors and the whole action was mala fide as the State Government intended to select and appoint its own favourites;

(d) that the action of the Government in not appointing them pursuant to the recommendation of the Board is violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution;

(e) that even after the abolition of the Board the candidates recommended by it could not be refused appointment on the ground that the Board later on became functus officio; and

(f) that even after the expiry of six months fixed by the Government i