Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suvidya Yadav vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 18 January, 1999
Equivalent citations: (1999)122PLR91
Author: N.C. Khichi
Bench: N.C. Khichi
JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.
1. On December 16, 1991, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 18 posts of Principal in the Senior Secondary Schools. On October 1, 1993, the result of the selection was declared. The Commission recommended the names of 30 persons for appointment to the State Government. Aggrieved by the selection, Smt. Survidya Yadav approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 12700 of 1993. She prayed that the result of the selection be quashed and that the respondents be directed to make fresh selection. During the course of arguments, three issues were raised. Firstly, it was contended that the selection and recommendation of the candidates beyond the number of posts which had been advertised was illegal. Secondly, it was submitted that the marks allotted for interview were unreasonable. Lastly, the criterion for selection was challenged as being irrational and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge accepted the first contention and held that the Commission could not have recommended candidates beyond the number of posts which had been actually advertised. The other two contentions were rejected. Resultantly, the Writ Petition was partly allowed. Even Civil Writ Petition No. 15923 of 1993 which was listed for hearing alongwith Civil Writ Petition No. 12700 of 1993 appears to have been decided in the same terms. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant, Suvidya Yadav as also the Haryana Public Service Commission have filed Letters Patent Appeals No. 263 and 562 of 1994.
2. Mr. Khehar, learned counsel for the appellant in Letter Patent Appeal No. 263 of 1994 has contended that additional posts had become available prior to the declaration of the result. Thus, the Commission could have recommended the names of suitable persons for appointment against the available posts. In particular, it has been pointed out that 37 posts had been advertised on June 1, 1993. Thereafter, the number of posts was changed to 38 vide advertisement dated December 11, 1993. Subsequently, on February 2, 1994, 12 more posts had become available. On this basis, it has been submitted that the Commission was entitled to recommend the names of available and suitable candidates and had committed no illegality in doing so. The contention has been supported by Mr. R.K. Malik who has appeared on behalf of seven applicants in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 1995. These applicants have prayed that they be impleaded as parties. It has been claimed by them that on having been found suitable by the Commission, they are entitled to be considered for appointment. No one has appeared on behalf of the Writ Petitioner to contest the Letters Patent Appeal.
3. The question that arises for consideration is - Could the Commission recommend the names of persons in excess of the posts which had been actually advertised? Admittedly, the Commission had issued the advertisement for 18 posts. The selection was made. The 18 persons have been appointed. Nothing has been disclosed to show as to why the Commission had recommended 12 additional names. Even if it is assumed that certain additional posts had become available prior to the declaration of the result, it is the admitted position that the Commission had issued advertisement on June 1, 1993 for 37 posts. Thereafter, another advertisement had been issued in December, 1993. We are informed that on November 30, 1996, advertisement for 73 posts had been issued. Consequently, it is clear that advertisements had been periodically issued. That being so, the recommendation of persons in excess of the advertised posts would have affected the rights of candidates who had become eligible after the expiry of the last date under the advertisement dated December 16, 1991 and applied for the posts of Principals in pursuance of the subsequent advertisements.
4. The issue as has arisen in this case has in fact been considered by the Apex Court in Hoshiar Singh v. The State of Haryana and Ors., J.T. 1993(5) Supreme Court 63 and in State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors., 1993(5) Services Law Reporter 601. Following these decisions a Full Bench of this Court had taken the view in Bijender Singh etc. v. The State of Haryana etc., (1994-3)108 Punjab Law Reporter 1 (F.B.) that "the Selection Board cannot make the selection in excess of the number of posts for which a requisition had been placed before it. ..." The decision of the Full Bench was challenged in appeal in Roshni Devi and Ors. etc. v. State of Haryana Ors., J.T. 1998(6) Supreme Court 459. Though the directions given by the Bench were modified, their Lordships were pleased to deprecate "the practice of selecting and preparing an unusually large list compared to the vacancy position.....". They were further pleased to observe that they had no hesitation to come to the conclusion that as against the requisition for 662 posts of Clerks received by the Service Selection Board, the Board committed gross illegality in selecting and preparing a list of 5373 candidates.
5. Thus, it appears to be settled that the Commission cannot select or recommend persons in excess of the posts which had been advertised. This is intended to serve a two fold purpose. Firstly, the candidates who have become eligible after the last date for submission of applications, under the advertisement, should not be deprived of the chance to compete. Secondly, it eliminates chances of arbitrary exercise of power by preparing unusually large list of selected candidates.
6. Mr. Khehar, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that under the advertisement the number of posts was subject to variation. The instructions issued by the Government from time to time permit the Commission to make recommendations in excess of the posts for which requisition had been sent. Learned counsel also referred to the decisbn of the Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain, 1991 (5) Services Law Reporter 624. It is true that selection is an expensive and a time consuming process. It is also true that some moving space should be allowed to the authorities so that for each single post, the necessity of repeating the process of selection is obviated. Yet, it does not appear to be possible to accept the contention that the Commission is at liberty to recommend the names of as many persons as it likes. In the present case, the admitted position is that the Commission had advertised 18 posts. Yet, the names of 30 persons were recommended. Why? There is no answer. It may be permissible for the Commission to recommend the names of two or three candidates in excess of the number mentioned in the advertisement so that in the event of a candidate not joining, the appointment could be offered to the next candidate. However, permitting the Commission to vary the number at its own choice, can lead to a total uncertainty. It can even lead to an arbitrary variation. It can result in negation of the guarantee under Articles 14 and 16.
7. As for the decision in Uma Kant's case, it may be noticed that the Statute provided for the preparation of the 'reserve list'. The period of the validity of the list was also indicated. Such is not the position in the present case. Thus, the appellant can derive no advantage from the decision in Uma Kant's case.
8. There is another aspect of the matter. The learned Single Judge had passed the judgment under appeal in two cases viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 12700 and 15923 of 1993. It has been stated before us that no Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by any one against the judgment in Civil Writ Petition No.15923 of 1993. The result is that the decision in that case has attained finality. The Commission has accepted that judgment. Variation of judgment in this case would lead to two contradictory decisions. Even if it is assumed to be permissible, such a result would not be very desirable.
9. No other point has been raised.
10. In view of the above, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, both the appeals are dismissed. As a result, even the interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. In the circumstances, there shall be not order as to costs.
11. In view of the above, Civil Miscellaneous Application Nos. 2843 of 1995 and 1243 of 1998 become infructuous and are accordingly dismissed.