KAILASH CHANDER SHARMA versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 189 · Decided: 16-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

·--· 
KAILASH CHANDER SHARMA 
v. 
STAIB OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND 
K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.J 
Civil Services: Assistant District Attorney-Appointment a/-
Undertaking given by State-Compliance of-Direction issued. 
In a group of cases filed in this Court in connection with recruit-
ment to the posts of Assistant District Attorneys hy the Stale Public 
Service Commission; The Respondent-State had undertaken that if any 
post was to· be filled up within one year, candidates who were selected 
by the Public Service Commisison but had not been appointed, would 
be appointed in the order of merit. However, the.petitioner, who was 
selected by the Public Service. Commission and, assigned 39th position 
in the order of merit, was ilot given the appointment, and a fresh 
notification was issued by the Public Service Commission for selecting 
candidates for 27 posts. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition in 
this Court alleging that the respondents had arbitrarily and illegally 
denied him his right to appointment to the posts. 
The respondent-State contended that since only 37 posts were 
earmarked for general candidates and no vacancy had arisen before the 
expiry of one year, the petitioner could not be appointed as per the 
undertaking given by the State. 
Disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court, 
HELD: When this Court had given the direction on the undertak-
ing given by the State that selected candidates would be appointed in 
vancancies that would arise within one year, it was expected that the 
State Government would comply with the spirit and substance of the 
direction, and not to avoid compliance on the technical plea of expiry of 
the one year period. The Court would not permit the State to avoid 
implementation of the order made by it on any technical or unjustified 
stand. ( I92E~F] 
It is incredible to believe that within one year even one vacancy 
had not arisen when 27 posts were subsequently notified for direct 
189 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
recruitment. It would be obvious, and it is common knolwedge, that 
A vacancies keep arising as and when the incumbents of such posts either 
retire or resign or new posts are created. On the fact-situation arising 
out of the record of the proceeding, it has to be concluded that some of 
these 27 vacancies did arise within the one year period set by this Court 
but the State Government delayed action to allow the year to run out 
B and to free itselffrom the purview of the direction. [ i92C, D•FI 
c 
D 
The petitioner, therefore, became entitled to be considered for 
appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney and given 
appointment in accordance with the rules. The respondents would 
accordingly appoint the petitioner against one of the posts subject to 
physical fitness. [192G) 
· 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 
1157 of 1988. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia) 
R.K. Kapoor, Mrs. Anil Katiyar (not present) for the Petitioner. 
Rajinder Sachar and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. RAMASWAMY, J. This writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution is a sequel to the order passed by this Court in Sat Dev 
Parasher, etc. etc, v. State of Haryana, in Writ Petition Nos. 887 of 
E 1986 and a batch of connected Special Leave Petitions, Transfer Peti-
tions etc. etc. in December, 1985. The State of Haryana made on 
different dated ad hoc appointments to the posts of Assistant District 
Attorney. Applications were invited by the Haryana Public Service 
Commission to make recruitment to the posts of Assistant District 
F 
Attorney. The ad hoc appointees filed writ petitions under Article 32 
and also Special Leave Petillons against the judgment of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana. Their main contention was that they have been 
regularly recruited though on ad hoc basis after interview by a ,duly 
constituted Committee and that they were entitled to be regularised. 
This Court while disposing of the cases held that the petitioners 
therein were appointed only on ad hoc basis till suitable candidates 
G were available for regular appointment. The interim orders passed on 
different dates were vacated. It was observed that "if amongst the'said 
petitioners any person has been appointed regularly by the Public 
Service Commission subsequently he shall hold the post pursuant to 
the order issued on the reco

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