Administrative instructions issued by the Government, which are not contrary to the rules and are part of the declared policy of the State, are enforceable by the appellants.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. - The Haryana Public Service Commission, Respondent 2 herein, (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") advertised for recruitment to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other allied services which included 12 posts of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch), 7 in general category and 5 in reserved category. The appellants submitted their applications. Appellant I was, in fact, holding the post of Excise and Taxation Officer. All the appellants gave their preference to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch), while Appellant I gave preference only for such service. The Commission held the written examination for the 1991 batch and interviewed the candidates who had passed the written examination in May 1992 and the final result was published on 19-6-1992. The appellants did not rank sufficiently high, but Appellants 2 and 3 were offered appointments as Excise and Taxation Officer and Tehsildar respectively. They joined duty also. Thereafter, the first appellant filed a writ petition being Civil Writ Petition No. 6057 of 1994 which was summarily dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 12-5-1994. The matter was carried to this Court when Appellants 2 and 3 got themselves impleaded. By an order made on 3o-10-1995, this Court disposed of the matter but gave liberty to the appellants to file a proper writ petition before the High Court for getting appointments on the basis of the earlier selection bearing in mind the circulars issued on 22-3-1957 and 26-3-1972. Subsequently, the three appellants presented a writ petition. The contention put forth before the High Court and reiterated before us is that the Government of composite Punjab had issued instructions prescribing the procedure to be adopted by the Commission that apart from those selected against the vacancies all notified additional vacancies which arise within six months from the recommendation of the names could filed up from amongst the names recommended by the Commission. Similar instructions were also issued by the Government of Haryana on 26-5-1972. Respondent 1 requested the Commission for concurrence to fill up 30 vacancies of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) for the year 1992 under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules. The cadre strength of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) was stated to be 240 and at present (sic that time) its total strength was only 129 and there was a shortfall of 111. There were 23 vacant posts to be filed up by direct recruitment and it was clear that 12 posts for direct recruitment were when the advertisement was made for examination which was held in 1991. Appellant 1 received a letter from the Commission that he selected as he come in the merit and he came to know that he had secured rank at Serial No. 8 in the general category and that he could not be selected for the post because there were only seven vacancies. The case put forward by the appellants is that, as per Annexure P-8, the Public Service Commission issued in 1992 Advertisement No. 7 for recruitment to 9 posts of the Haryana Civil Service (Executive branch) in general category. The result of the selection of candidates pursuant to the advertisement issued in 1989 was declared on 19-6-1992 and Advertisement No. 7 was issued in 1992 within a period of six months and so there was necessity further selection and the said 9 vacancies in the general category in Advertisement No. 7 has to be accommodated by candidates who were already in the waiting list/panel of the 1989 recruitment.

2. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis that

(i) the appellants have not given any explanation for the time gap of almost four years between their appointment to the service and the date on which the writ petition was filed and the unexplained delay of over three years and eight months disentitled them from seeking relief;