NEELIMA SHANGLA PH.D. CANDIDATE versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 785 · Decided: 17-09-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·7" 
NEELIMA SHANGLA Ph.0. tANDIDATE 
v. 
STATE OF"HARYANA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY ANO M:M~"DUTT, JJ.] 
Harypna Civil Services (Judicial Branch)-Subordinate Judges-
Appointment tO-Parts C & D/Rules 7 & 8---Public Service 
Commission-Whether it can withhold the name of some of the 
qualified candidates-Duty of the Commission to make available to 
government complete list of qualified candidates. 
Out GI' 390 candidates who appeared at the test held in 1983-84 for 
Sl!lection to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch), 54 candidates 
· bellinging to the general category, four candidates belonging to the 
backward classes, four candidates belonging to scheduled castes and 
two candidates belonging to the category of ex-servicemen, qualified for 
. appointment by securing the pres~ribed minimum of 55 per cent. The . 
petitioner was ranked No. 24. There were 54 vacandes.altogetber but 
the Public Service Commission recommendei 26 candidates oniy and 
they included 17 ftoni the general category. 
in a Writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner 
contended (i) that if the rules relating to the appointment of Sub" 
ordinate Judges in Haryana had been adhered to, she wonld have been 
t 
selected for appointment; and (ii) that 32 candidates in order of merit 
from the general category should have been,selected for appointment 
• 
- .and that the Service Commission illegally withheld the names of all the 
successful candidates from the Government ahd the High Court. 
· 
Allowing the writ petiiion, 
HELD: 1.1 The scheme of the rules relating to the appointment 
of Subordinate Judges in Haryana appears to be that the Public Service 
Commission should hold first a written test in subjects chosen by the 
High Court and next a Viva-voce test. The result of the examination is 
required to he published in the Haryana Gazette and the selecti<in for 
appointment is to be made strictly in the order in which the candidates 
785 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
786 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
have been placed by the Service Commission in. the list of candidates 
qualified under rule 8 of Part-C. [790B-D] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1.2 Under the "Roles relating to the appointment of Subordinate 
Judges in Haryana", the Public Service Commission is not concerned 
with the number of vacancies at all. Nor is it expected to withhold the 
full list of successful candidates on the ground that only a limited 
number of. vacancies are available. The duty of the Public Service 
Commission is confined to holding the written examination, holding the 
Viva-voce test and arranging the order of merit according to marks 
among that·candidates who have qualified as a result of the written and 
the Viva-voce tests. Thereafter the Public Service Commission is 
required to publish the result in the Gazette and, apparently to make 
the result available to the Government. The Public Service Commission 
is not required to make any further selection from the qualified 
candidates and is, therefore, not expected to withhold the names of any 
qualified candidates. The duty of the Public Service Commission is to 
make available to the Government a complete list of qualified 
candidates arranged in order of merit. Thereafter the Government is to 
make the selection strictly in the order in which they have been placed 
by the Commission as a result of the examination. The names of the 
selected candidates are then to he entered in the Register maintained by 
the High Court strictly in that order and appointments made from the 
names entered in that Register also strictly in the ~ame order. It is, of 
course, open to the Government not to fill up all the vacancies for a 
valid reason. [790E-H; 791A] 
) 
2. The selection cannot arbitrarily be restricted to a few candi-
dates, notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability of 
~
qualified candidates. There must be a conscious application of the mind 
of the Government and the High Court before the number of persons · · 
sele<;ted for appointment is restricted. Any other interpretation would 
I
make rule 8 of Part D of the Rules relating to the appointment of 
Subordinate Judges in Haryana meaningless. [791D-E] 
In the . instant case, ~he reason given by the Public Service 
Commission for not communicating the entire list of qualified candi-
dates to the Government is that they were originally informed that there 
were only 28 vacancies. That is not a sound rea

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