SUDESH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order of ours will dispose of C.W.P. No. 8187 of 1990 as well as C.W.P. No. 12206 of 1990.

(2.) The facts, which are not is dispute, in brief are that the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter called the Board), advertised a huge number of posts of Clerks to be appointed in various Department of Haryana. The requisition of the posts of Clerks in the various Departments of Haryana was more than 1000. A joint written test was taken by the Board and one merit list was prepared by the Board. The names of the selected candidates were recommended for appointment in different Departments of Haryana against the posts of Clerks as per the requisition made by each department. Some how it so happened that the candidates, who were recommended by the Board for being appointed in a particular department were not give appointments for various reasons, like there was no requirement of the filling of the posts at the relevant time or for some reasons the posts were not available etc. The end result of this was that candidates who were lower in merit and were recommended for appointment in particular department got appointments, whereas the candidates who were higher in merit and recommended for appointments in another department at all. In other words, candidates lower in merit got the appointments; whereas the candidates higher in merit did not get the appointments, though their names were recommended by the Board for being appointed by a particular department.

(3.) The grievance of the petitioners is that while giving appointments, petitioners who were higher in merit have been ignored, while candidates lower in merit have got appointments. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this was a clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent-Board is that the Board had recommended the names of the candidates to various departments strictly in accordance with merit and it is for the department to make appointments, as the Board is not the appointing Authority, but is only a recommending Authority. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the Board is not at fault at all and if certain department does not give appointments, the Board cannot be blamed for that. It has not been denied that the six candidates lower in merit have been appointed by the other departments; whereas the petitioners who were higher in merit have not been given been by the department where the names of the petitioners were recommended and their names have been sent back to the Board. It has been further pleaded by the Board in its written statement that the names of the persons which have been received back and could not be appointed by various departments on account of one reason or the other, such names would bee again sent for appointment as per their original merit as and when any requisition is received by the Board subject to any decision of the Government regarding the validity of the existing selection list. It has been further stated that different departments have different qualifications for the post of Clerk and sometimes the person whose name is recommended for appointment does not have the requisite qualifications and that is why he is not given appointment by the concerned department.