LexROSHNI DEVI AND ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ROSHNI DEVI AND ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 18, 1998 B [MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) Se1vice Law : Appointment-S e1vice Selection Board of H wyana-S electing 5373 C candidates as against 662 vacancie~Names from select list not sent in order of melit for appointment-Pe1~·ons higher in me1it than those appointed filed wlit petition-High Cowt directing to appoi11t all such persons and that list would not lapse till last such candidate is appointed-In another w1it petition the select list challenged-A Full Bench of High Cowt held that directions issued in earlier judgment were not in con/ onnity with law-Held, a select list D remains valid for one yem~Board committed gross e1mr in selecting much more candidates tha11 those required and in not recomme11ding 11ames for appointment in order of nwit-Directions modifying the judgment of Full f3ench issued. E The Service Selection Board of the State of Haryana received requi- sitions for 662 posts of Clerks from different departments of the State ", Government for the year 1987. The Board conducted written test and prepared a selection list of 5373 candidates on 15.10.1989 and recom- mended 1692 candidates to different departments. It was stated that F recommendations were made at random and not in order of merit; and the persons so recommended included even a candidate shown at serial No. 4645 of the merit list. A writ petition was filed in the High Court. The said writ petition was allowed holding that all persons higher in merit and not appointed were entitled to appointment. It was directed that without disturbing the appointments already made, all future appointments would G be made from the list dated 15.10.1989 and the list would not lapse. Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed another writ petition before the High Court challenging the validity of the selection list dated 15.10.1989, inter alia, on the ground that the Board could not prepare a list H of 5373 candidates against 662 vacancies as informed by various depart- 714 - ROSHNI DEVI v. STATE 715 ments, and that the select list would lapse after expiry of one year. This A petition came to be heard by a Full Bench of the High Court which held that the Board could not' made selection in excess of requisition made by different departments subject to the provision of waiting list; the directions · given in Sudesh Kumari's case that the selection list dated 15.10.1989 would not lapse were not inconformity with law; that the said list was valid for B one year and vacancies arising from 15.10.1990 onwards would be re-ad- vertised. However, the High Court further directed that the Government would consider the claim of the candidates whose name appeared up to serial No. 662 in the merit list but did not get appointment. The appellants challenged this judgment in the present appeal. It was contended for the appellants that the Full Bench could not have annulled the mandamus issued in Sudesh Kumari's case, as a writ of mandamus could be nullified only by preferring an appeal to a higher forum and by getting such judgment reversed and as such the Full Bench c had no jurisdiction to give the impugned directions. For the respondent D State it was contended that the directions given in Sudesh Kumari's case, were against public policy and implementation thereof would adversely affect the employment opportunity of future generations for years to come. Disposing of the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. A select list remains valid for one year and, therefore, after expiry of the said period normally a court would not be justified in issuing direction to give appointments from the list whose time has already expired unless it is established that notwithstanding existence of vacancies the appointing authority malafidely did not make appointment from the list. [720-F-G] 1.2. The Service Selection Board committed gross illegality in select- E F ing and preparing a list of 5373 candidates against the requisition for 662 posts of clerk received by it. The Board also erred in sending the names G of persons from the list not in order of their merit but at random, as a result of which persons with higher merit stood excluded whereas persons securing lower merit got appointed. This seriously prejudices the interest of future candidates and also jeopardised the administration to a gre::t extent. [720-G-H] H 716 SUPREME COURT RE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.