ORDER

1. The appellants herein feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 4-2-1993 have preferred these appeals by special leave. The brief facts which need to be noticed for the disposal of these appeals are as under:

2. On receipt of a requisition from the Director of Land Records for filling vacancies in the post of Patwaris, an advertisement was issued on 7-5-1987, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the existing 485 vacancies. Pursuant to this advertisement, over a lakh of candidates applied for the post of Patwari. It appears that thereafter the Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter called the Board) was dissolved on 22-6-1987, and was reconstituted on 25-6-1987. Thereupon, a fresh advertisement was issued for filling in the said 485 vacancies on 22-7-1987. On the requisition of the Director, the total number of vacancies were enlarged to 1000 or thereabout. As a very large number of candidates had applied, the Board constituted various committees for interviewing the candidates at different stations. On receipt of the recommendations from these committees, the Board selected 2318 candidates. However, the Government reduced the number to 1313 candidates. On their successful completion of the training they would eventually be appointed Patwaris under the provisions of the Haryana Revenue Patwaris (Group C) Service Rules, 1981 (hereinafter called the Rules). 3. Six of the unsuccessful candidates (respondents 3 to 9 herein) challenged the selection made by the Board on various grounds by way of writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Division Bench of that High Court passed an interim order on 6-3-1991. As 574 candidates out of the selected candidates had already been sent for training and it was apprehended that further candidates may be sent for training, the High Court by an interim order permitted the State Government to go ahead with the process of training of 574 selected candidates, but restricted the appointments to 485 candidates including reserved category. The earlier interim order was modified accordingly. Later, the High Court heard the writ petitions and disposed them of by the judgment impugned herein dated 4-2-1993. It appears that in the course of the hearing of the writ petitions the statement of Shri M.S. Madan, the Secretary of the Board, was recorded as a court witness on 12-1-1993 which has been reproduced in extenso in the judgment of the High Court. We, therefore, do not feel called upon to reproduce the same herein. The High Court after considering the material laid before it quashed the impugned selection mainly on three grounds, namely, (1) that out of the total candidates selected, a large majority belonged to District Sirsa, including Darba Kalan Assembly Constituency, represented by Shri Om Prakash Chautala, son of the then Chief Minister, Ch. Devi Lal; (2) the selection process was reduced to a mere farce or mockery as hardly a minute or two could be devoted to each candidate at the interview having regard to the time spent and the number of candidates interviewed on a single day by the Committee appointed by the Board; and (3) the percentage of marks allotted for interview being as high as 85 per cent, it left room for arbitrary pick and choose.

4. Mr Sudhir Walia, the learned counsel appearing in C.A. Nos. 3859-62 of 1993 very ably presented the case on behalf of the appellants and pointed out that the decision rendered by the High Court directly affected the appellants who were admittedly not parties to the writ petitions filed in the High Court and, therefore, grave injustice was done to the appellants as their point of view was not available to the High Court. We, therefore, permitted him to place the case on behalf of the appellants in extenso so that we may be able to appreciate the point of view of the appellants and come to our own decision on the merits or otherwise of the appeals. Ha