Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Paulami Sen, Adv. Ms. Aaliya Siddiqui, Adv. Ms. Shweta Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vedant Pardhan, Adv. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Alka Aggarwal, AAG Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. D S Chauhan AOR, Ms. Ruchi Singh Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar Adv. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Bhuvneshwari Pathak, AOR

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Narender Singh vs. The State of Haryana and Others:

Case Overview and Parties * The case involves an appeal by Narender Singh (Appellant) against the High Court of Punjab & Haryana's dismissal of his writ petitions seeking appointment as an Assistant Professor (History). (!) (!) (!) * The respondents include the State of Haryana and the Haryana Public Service Commission. (!) (!)

Facts of the Case * The appellant, a JBT Teacher since 2000, applied for 1647 Assistant Professor posts advertised on 16.02.2016. (!) (!) * The advertisement required a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the appointing authority at the time of the interview. (!) * The appellant applied for the NOC on 22.03.2016, which was received by the District Elementary Education Officer on 04.04.2016. (!) (!) * The appellant cleared the written examination on 06.11.2017 but could not appear for the interview due to the non-issuance of the NOC. (!) (!) * The appellant filed a writ petition on 05.12.2017; the High Court passed an interim order on 07.12.2017 allowing provisional interviews despite the missing NOC. (!) (!) * The NOC was finally issued on 06.06.2018 and submitted to the Public Service Commission on 08.06.2018, which was before the final appointments were made on 12.07.2018. (!) (!) (!) * The High Court previously dismissed the petitions, arguing the appellant had ample time to pursue the NOC earlier and refused appointment relief, though it imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the employer for the delay. (!) (!)

Issues and Arguments * Main Issue: Whether the appellant should be appointed despite the delay in obtaining the NOC, given that he was a more meritorious candidate than the one actually appointed. (!) (!) * Appellant's Argument: There was no delay or fault on the appellant's part; the delay was caused by the employer. Since the last appointed candidate scored fewer marks (62.64) than the appellant (64.89), the appellant is entitled to appointment. (!) (!) (!) * Respondent's Argument (Public Service Commission): Claimed no involvement as they are not the competent authority for NOC issuance. (!) * Respondent's Argument (State of Haryana): Admitted the delay was on the part of the District Elementary Education Officer but argued against disturbing the current appointee. (!) * Respondent's Argument (Appointed Candidate): Requested protection of his appointment since he has been in service for over three years, is a Ph.D., and is the sole breadwinner for his family. He requested to be shifted to another vacant post. (!) (!)

Court's Findings and Ratio Decidendi * The Supreme Court found no delay or fault on the part of the appellant; the entire delay was attributable to the employer. (!) (!) * The Court noted that the appellant was a more meritorious candidate than the last person appointed. (!) (!) * Denying appointment to the appellant while he was not at fault and was more qualified was deemed unjustifiable. (!) * The Court held that the lower courts committed a grave error in not directing the appointment of the appellant. (!)

Final Decision and Directives * The appeal was allowed, and the previous judgments dismissing the writ petitions were quashed. (!) (!) * The State Government and Haryana Public Service Commission were directed to issue an appointment order to the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor (History) within two weeks. (!) (!) * Seniority and Pay: The appellant is entitled to continuity in service for seniority and pay fixation but is not entitled to back wages under the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. (!) * Protection of Current Appointee: The respondent who was already appointed (Respondent No. 4) shall not be disturbed in his service. (!) (!) * Accommodation: The current appointee (Respondent No. 4) is directed to be accommodated on any other vacant post of Assistant Professor (History). (!) (!)