Public Service Commissions are obligated to comply with the directions of the Supreme Court and make recommendations for filling vacancies in accordance with those directions.

Petitioner seeks a direction to the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission') commanding it to recommend the names of successful candidates on the basis of advertisement no. 11/85 for appointment to the posts of Secretariat Assistant against the remaining vacancies which were in existence on December 31, 1998. According to the petitioner the Commission's refusal to do so despite repeated requests by the State Government is both illegal and plainly in contravention of the direction given by the Supreme Court on this matter.

2. The facts are all admitted and can be stated thus. On August 25, 1985 advertisement no.11/85 was issued by the Bihar State Subordinate Services Selection Board, which was in existence at that time, for appointment to the posts of Secretariat Assistant in the Secretariat and connected offices. Though the advertisement stated that vacancies upto the year 1985-86 would be filled up, it did not disclose the exact number of vacancies available for appointments. For the selection of the candidates an examination was held in November, 1987 and about three years later the result of the examination was published in July, 1990. The Board then made recommendations in the light of a communication dated 25.8.1987 issued by the Joint Secretary in the department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms to the Secretary of the Board which gave the break up of the vacancies in a tabular form, indicating the total number of vacancies, as then existing to be 357. On the basis of the Board's recommendation 309 candidates were given appointment by the State Government. Candidates in the general category who had secured more than 50% marks in the selection test and whose names were in the select list were empanelled and made to wait in anticipation of release of further vacancies by the State. When no further vacancies were released by the State Government some of those empanelled candidates made a representation before it requesting that all vacancies which had come into existence on the date of publication of the result in July, 1990 should be filled up from the panel prepared on the basis of the selection test held in pursuance of advertisement no.11/85. The State Government turned down the representation and by letter dated 8.8.1991 asked the Commission to issue fresh advertisement and hold fresh competitive test for appointment of Secretariat Assistants.

3. At this stage the petitioner came to this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2912/91 seeking appropriate reliefs. That writ petition was allowed by a Bench of this court by judgment and order dated October 11, 1991. The operative part of the judgment was as follows:

"Considering the peculiar circumstances of the present case, therefore, we quash Annexure-16 dated 8.8.1991 and in order to do justice between the parties and not to leave these young graduates, in lurch, we direct the Board to recommend the names of these petitioners in accordance with their seniority in the merit list for appointment on the posts of Secretariat Assistants in accordance with the existing vacancies as available on the date of publication of their result, i.e. July, 1990".

4. The State challenged the judgment of the High Court by filing Civil Appeal No.5298/93 (arising out of S.L.P (C) No.7423/92) before the Supreme Court. The appeal was disposed of by judgment and order dated October 8, 1993. The Supreme Court held that the direction given by the High Court to fill up all vacancies coming into existence till the publication of the result in July, 1990 was not proper and could not be sustained. It accordingly set aside that part of the direction given by the High Court. It, however, affirmed the High Court's judgment in all other respects and directed that the panel would be given effect to for filling up all vacancies which were in existence till December 31, 1988. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the Supreme Court's judgment.

"Keeping in view