HOSHIAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals, by special leave, have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 31/10/1991 in Civil Writ Petition No. 5123 of 1991 : (reported in (1992) 1 Serv LR 157) and other connected writ petitions, whereby the High Court has quashed the selection and the recommendation made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') for appointment on the post of Inspector of Police and the orders for appointment of 18 of the persons selected on the said post.

(2.) THE Board has been constituted under Art. 309 of the Constitution and is vested with the function of selecting and recommending candidates for appointment to Class III non-gazetted posts falling within the purview of the Board. THE post of Inspector of Police is one of the posts falling within the purview of the Board. On 23/10/1987, the Director General of Police had sent a requisition to the Board for selecting suitable candidates for appointment on six posts of Inspectors of Police. In these six posts, one was reserved for Scheduled Castes, two for ex-Servicemen and three were in general category. After the receipt of the said requisition, the Board issued an advertisement dated 22/01/1988 inviting applications for the said posts. On 7/07/1988, a corrigendum was issued to the advertisement dated 22/01/1988. THE advertisement as amended by the said corrigendum stated as under

(3.) BEFORE the High Court no reply was filed on behalf of the State of Haryana as well as the Board and the Chairman of the Board who was also impleaded as a party in some writ petitions. On behalf of the Director General of Police, Haryana, two replies were filed. One reply, dated May 15, 199 1, was-filed by Shri R. K. Hooda, Director General of Police, Haryana. Subsequently, another reply was filed on 18/08/1991 by Shri B. R. Lall, Inspector General of Police, Haryana on behaff of the Director General of Police. The High Court has pointed out that there is substantial difference in the stand taken by the Director General of Police in the two affidavits. In the earlier reply of Shri R. K. Hooda, it was stated that as on 2/04/1991, there were 20 posts of Inspector of Police available to be filled up by direct recruitment and the Government was justified in making the 19 appointments. In the subsequent affidavit of Shri B. R. Lall, it has been stated that the posts available for direct recruitment were in fact only 8 and that the additional 11 candidates who have been selected were offered appointments against the posts in the Wireless Section which was a separate cadre and that these candidates have not been taken over as the appointment authority in the Wireless Section had objected to their appointments. In the said affidavit, it was also pointed that the break up of the 19 posts now sought to be filled in ought to have been as under