Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
STATE O HARYANA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MISS AJAY WALIA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/07/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.