JAI SINGH DALAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 816 · Decided: 18-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAI SINGH DALAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 18, 1992 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
Civil Services: Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) Rules, 1930: 
Rule 5-Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch)-Selection for appoint-
ment by Special Recruitment-Notificatioin issued-Change in Govem-
C ment-Subsequent withdrawal and issue of fresh notification revising selection 
criteritt-Whether could be challenged-Whether employee could claim ap-
pointment as of right-whether selection process once started must be com-
pleted-Whether the authority, having power to specify the method of 
recruitment could· be deemed to have power to revise and substitute the same 
D 
E 
F 
in the same manner. 
· 
Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898: Section 19-Applicability of-Selec-
tion /or appointment by .Special Recruitment-Notification issued-Sub-
sequent withdrawal and issue of fresh notification fixing revised eligibility 
criteritt-Validity of 
The appellants were members of the Haryana State Services and 
were working in different capacities in the year 1990. In that year there 
were 45 vacancies in the Services. The State Government look a decision 
to resort to special recruitment under Rule S of the Punjab Civil Services 
(Executive Branch) Rules, 1930 which were in force then, and in exercise 
of the power conferred by the proviso to Rule 5, 21 posts belonging to the 
State Civil Service were taken out from the purview of the State Public 
Service Commission and were decided to be filled up by special recruit-
ment. The State Government issued a Circular dated July 17, 1990, to all 
Heads of Departments of tile State Government calling upon them to 
G recommend eligible and suitable officers as per the criteria indicated 
therein for being considered for appointment by special recruitment. By a 
subsequent notification dated January 25, 1991, the State Government in 
consultation with the Public Service Commission made a slight modifica-
tion in the eligibility requirement. 
H 
The Circular and the subsequent Notifications issued by the State 
816 
\ 
JAI SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA 
817 
" 
Government were challenged in a Writ Petition filed by certain State A 
employees wherein the validity of Rule 5 was also put in issue. Another set 
of Writ Petitions was also filed by officers of various departments who 
were not eligible for special recruitment under the Circular and Notitica· 
"" 
tions. The Writ Petitions were ultimately dismissed by the High Court. 
~ 
Against the said order of dismissal of the Writ Petitions, two appeals were B 
filed in this Court by special leave. This Court dh-ected that six posts 
should be kept available for the appellants in case they succeeded in the 
appeals. 
While the process of selection was in progress there was a change of 
~ 
the Government and the new Government decided to review the earlier c 
...... 
Government's decision in regard to special recruitment. Thereupon 
another notification was issued on December 30, 1991, withdrawing the 
earlier notifications. The new Government took a decision to reframe its 
policy in regard to making of special recruitment in consultation with the 
~ 
P.S.C. under the proviso to Rule 5 of the ·Rules. 
D 
Thereupon, the appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High 
Court, challenging the decision of the new Government to cancel the 
notifications dated December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991, by the 
notification dated December 30, 1991 under challenge. 
E 
The respondents filed a counter explaining the reasons for its sub-
sequent action. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ 
petition. Aggrieved, the appellants tiled the appeal, by special leave, before 
this Court. 
F 
It was contended that even the newly formed Government saw the 
need for special recruitment to meet the exigencies of service but instead 
--f 
of permitting the P.S.C. to complete the selection process it decided to set 
-
at naught the entire process by issuing the notification dated December 
30, 1991, even though the selection process was at an advanced stage and 
G 
only the names of candidates from the aforesaid two departments were 
required to be forwarded, the entire process was scuttled by the State 
~ 
Government's refusal to forward the names of the candidates belonging to 
the said two departments. They further contended that this exercise was 
undertaken by the newly formed Government in total disregar

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.