Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. Therefore, as per Rule 33 (b) of the Service Rules 1996, the respondents/applicants were entitled to be given the seniority in the order of merit or preference as per the merit list of appointees of 1996 being selectees of DSC-1989.

29. In Balwant Singh Narwal v. State of Haryana3 the Haryana Public Service Commission, the third respondent therein (in short "the Commission") issued an advertisement in January 1992 inviting applications for (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 586 RNT, J & CGR, J 18 posts of temporary Principals in higher secondary schools. The advertisement made it clear that the number of posts advertised was subject to variations to any extent. On 01.06.1993, the State Education Department made a fresh requisition to the Commission in regard to additional vacancies, thereby increasing the posts to be filled to 37. The respondents 4 to 16 therein were applicants against the said advertisement and underwent the process of selection. The Commission declared the merit list of 30 selected candidates on 30.09.1993, published on 01.10.1993, which included respondents 4 to 16. However, before the State Government could make appointment in terms of the said list, a non-selected candidate filed WP No. 12700 of 1993 contending that only 18 posts were notified and the Commission could not make recommendations for selection of 30 candidates. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court on 04.04.1994 and the recommendations in excess of the 18 vacancies were quashed on the ground that the Commission could not make recommendations beyond the number of posts advertised. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. In the meanwhile, in view of the Orders of the learned Single Judge, the State Government appointed only 16 candidates from the list of 30, by Order dated 02.06.1994, as against 18 permitted by the High Court, not for want of vacancies but on account of some technical difficulty in appointing other two candidates. The respondents 4 to 16 were denied appointments, though their names were in the selected merit list of 30 candidates. The Order of the Division Bench of the High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, which was disposed of, reversing the RNT, J & CGR, J decision of the High Court and dismissing the writ petition, also holding that the recommendations made by the Commission were in accordance with law, and therefore, all the 30 names recommended by the Commission were entitled to be appointed. Pursuant thereto, the State Government by Order dated 26.05.2000 appointed respondents 4 to 16 as Principals. They also requested for fixing their seniority with reference to the merit list vide various representations that they should be given seniority above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. The State Government considered and accepted their request and fixed their position immediately after the 16 candidates who were appointed from the same merit list on 02.06.1994, and they were shown above the appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the provisional seniority list of Principals HES-II. These appellants before the Hon'ble Apex Court were the Principals appointed in the meantime pursuant to subsequent selection for subsequent vacancies.