Sh. Surinder Singh vs The State of Haryana and Another

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as per the directions issued by the Supreme Court in case of Roshni Devi and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , wherein while disposing of the appeal, six directions were issued by the Supreme Court. Petitioner is primarily pressing for the implementation of these directions. Petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 22.7.1987 applied for the post of Clerk. He was called for interview and was selected. List of 5373 selected candidates was published by the Subordinate Service Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ''the Board'') on 15.10.1990. Petitioner was placed at merit number 2752 of the select list. The Board recommended names of 1692 candidates to different departments of Haryana Government for appointment and while doing so failed to adhere to the merit list prepared by it and instead recommendations were made at random. This resulted in candidates with higher merit in the select list being ignored and lower in merit appointed. Aggrieved by selection some of the candidates filed CWP No. 8187 of 1990 titled as Sudesh Kumari and others Versus State of Haryana and others, which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.1990 ( 1991 (1) RSJ 21) other candidates filed CWP No. 174 of 1992 titled as Bijender Singh and others Versus State of Haryana. The matter was referred to the Full Court and some directions were issued by the Court. The judgment is reported as 1995 (1) RSJ 620. Aggrieved by this decision of the Full Court, Roshni Devi and others preferred appeals before the Supreme Court and these appeals were disposed of on 18.9.1998 with the following directions in substitution of the directions made by the High Court in the impugned judgment:-

1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 will not be annulled.

2) The last persons who is stated to have been appointed being at Serial No. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk if there exists any vacancy for them.

3) The vacancy in this context would mean the vacancies which were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date, then no further appointment would be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 notwithstanding the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case.

4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned, then the appointments from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the list.

5) We strongly deprecate the practice of selecting and preparing an unusually large list compared to the vacancy position and the State Government should either amend the recruitment rules in that respect and till then should issue positive administrative instructions giving the right to the Selection Board to select only some persons in excess than the requisition for which the Board is going to select people.

6) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the State Government in not assailing the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari case and now coming up before us making submissions that judgment is practically incapable of being implemented.

Petitioner alleged that the above directions have not been complied with by the respondents and thus, has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case.

Perusal of the above directions dated 18.9.1998 issued by the Supreme Court would show that the last person who had been appointed out of the select list was placed at serial number 4645 and the claim of persons occupying higher position than him could be considered for appointment to the post of Clerk, if there exists any vacancy for them which were available in the State of Haryana, prior to the advertisement issued for selecting persons for the said post for the year 1995. It was further clarified that if no vacancies exist on the aforesaid date, then no further appointment was to be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989. These appointments were also to be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in the merit list.

In a similar matter i.e. CWP No. 11705 of 2005 titled as Sudama and others Versus State of Haryana and another, which came up for consideration after issuance of notice to the respondent-State, State of Haryana filed written statement wherein it was mentioned that no vacancy is available in General, Scheduled Caste and Backward Class categories and as such appointments cannot be made by the State, as per the directions of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the respondents, this Court was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 28.6.2010.

Another ground on which the prayer made in the present writ petition cannot be accepted is that the petitioner has approached this Court after an inordinate and unexplained delay. Directions were issued by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 18.9.1998 and petitioner has now approached this Court after more than 13 years, which itself disentitles him to the claim made in the present writ petition being a stale one. In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.