Judgment

MOHAN, J.:- Both these cases can be dealt with under a common judgment since what arises for our consideration is the validity of selection of Taxation Inspectors by the Subordinate Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The appellants are unsuccessful candidates.

2. The Board issued an advertisement bearing No. 5 of 1986 on 22-11-86 inviting applications for 96 posts for Taxation Inspectors in Excise and Taxation Department. Out of these 96 posts 24 were reserved for scheduled castes, 10 for backward classes and 17 for ex-servicemen of Haryana. The minimum qualification was graduation of a recognised University or equivalent and knowledge of Hindi up to Matric level. The selection was to be made on the basis of written test of 250 marks and viva voce test. The candidate will not be eligible unless he obtained 33 per cent marks in each subject and the minimum of 40 per cent in the aggregate. In response to the advertisement many candidates applied but for some reason the written test could not be conducted.

3. The Board again advertised for the very same number of 96 posts of Taxation Inspectors as per the Advertisement No. 3 of 1988 dated 7-7-88. The reservation was as was done previously. The other conditions and qualifications were also the same. It was mentioned in this advertisement that those candidates who had earlier applied against Boards Advertisement No. 5 of 1986 and were eligible according to the prescribed qualifications, need not apply again. The previous applications would be considered for these posts. It requires to be stated at this stage that the Board first allotted roll numbers to the applicants who applied in 1986 then to the candidates who applied in 1988. The continuity of the roll numbers was maintained.

4. The Board conducted the written examination at various centres in the State of Haryana on 17-12-88 and 18-12-88. On receipt of the answer books from different centres a key book was got prepared by the Secretary of the Board with the help of the confidential branch. This key book contained the following particulars :

(i) The name of the candidate with the parents name.

(ii) Roll No.

(iii) The details of the subject of the written test.

5. Fictitious roll numbers were allotted to each candidate in the key book by removing the original roll number slips. Thereafter, the answer books were sent to different examiners for evaluation. After examining the answer books, the examiners were required to prepare an award list which is a summary indicating the fictitious roll number of the candidates and the marks obtained by them in each subject. On receipt of the answer books the marks obtained by the candidates in each subject were entered in the key book. On the basis of the key book award lists and answer books, the result of the written test was prepared by the Board. Thereafter the same was published by displaying it on the notice board.

6. Any candidate who desired to get his answer book re-checked could do so within a period of 30 days from the declaration of the result of written test only after depositing the prescribed fee. Such a procedure was indicated in the rules. This was also the practice prevalent in the Board.

7. However, strangely, the interviews were directed to take place on 3-10-89 after the expiry of only 17 days. The interviews were held in three different centres: (1) Hissar, (2) Karnal, and (3) Pinjore. Therefore, three interview committees had to be constituted. Each committee consisted of two Board Members and one Advisor from Excise and Taxation Department. The interviews went on till 12-10-89. About 200 candidates were to be interviewed by each committee on each day. The appellants claim that their performance in the interviews was excellent. Therefore if judged on the basis of written test and performance of the interview they ought to have been selected on the basis of the merit.

8. Originally, 4th respondent, Anand Singh Dangi was the Chairman of the Board. He r