State of
Haryana & Ors Vs. Miss Ajay Walia
[1997] INSC 556 (7 July 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Leave granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
This
appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab 7 Haryana High Court,
made on October 15,
1996 in CWP No.
12474/95.
The
admitted facts are that in June 1980 there was a requisition in the Irrigation
Department for filling up of four vacancies of sub-Divisional Clerks. The
Subordinate service selection Board advertised the posts. Instead of selecting
four candidates , it prepared a list of 28 candidates in November 1982 and
recommended them for appointment Eight candidates including the respondent were
recommended for appointment in Hathnikund Procurement Circle. The Superintendent Engineer wrote a letter to the
selection Board on November
3, 1982 stating that
procurement Circle had not requisitioned for recruitment of any candidate and
that he could not make any appointment; accordingly, he returned the request the
request for appointment.
It
would appear that the respondent has been making application to various
authorities from time to time but the same failed to bear any fruit. As a
consequence, writ petition came so be filed in October 1996 seeking issuance of
writ write of mandamus for appointment to the post of Sub-Divisional Clerk. The
High court allowed the write petition and directed the state to appoint the
appellant forthwith on the post of S.S.C in any Department of the State of haryana.
The High court also awarded costs quantified at Rs, 10,000/-Thus, this appeal
by special leave challenging the order of the High Court. The facts reveal that
requisition was made for recruitment only four candidates. The service
selection Board had no power and jurisdiction to select as many as 28
candidates and to recommend their names to various Departments for appointment.
in the circumstances, when the Superintending Engineer Hathnikund circle had
not requisitioned appointment of 8 candidates including the respondent, he
rightly not acceded to and returned the list to the Board stating that he could
not make any appointment as the ad hoc sub-Divisional Clerks already working
had obtained stay form the High Court against their termination. In these
circumstance, the direction asking the superintending Engineer to appoint the
respondent, issued by the High court is obviously illegal moreover, the
selection was made in 1982 and writ petition came to be filed in 1995, i.e.,
after and inordinate delay. Representations repeatedly repeatedly given to
various arthouities fo not furnish her fresh course of action to file writ
petition. The High court is wholly unjustified to have enteriained and allowed
the writ petition.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set asidce.
The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Back
