SATPAL NAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of nine writ petitions bearing numbers 10903, 19059, 10130, 9205, 12475, 16958, 18309 of 1991 and 3737, 3785 of 1992 in which common questions of law and fact arise. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from civil writ petition No. 10903 of 1991.

(2.) In pursuance of a requisition sent by the Haryana Agricultural Department for filling up 153 posts of Agricultural Development Officers (for short, ADOS), the Haryana Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') invited applications through an advertisement issued sometime in the year 1988. The Board recommended 192 candidates including the petitioners who were selected. There were 79 posts for general category to which the petitioners belong but the Board recommended 157 candidates of this category. The names of the selected candidates including those of the petitioners appeared in the list as per their respective order of merit. The department as per orders on different dates issued appointment letters to 118 candidates including 84 candidates belonging to the general category. It is not disputed that all these appointees were higher in merit than the petitioners in the select list sent by the Board. The only grievance of the petitioners now is that despite a large number of vacancies in the department, they are not being appointed as ADOs, even though they had been selected for posts by the Board.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the department, the firm stand taken is that after issuance of letters of appointment to 84 candidates belonging to the general category, there is no post vacant in the department for this category of officers. The vacancies to which the petitioners have made a reference in their writ petitions are those meant for candidates belonging to the reserved categories, like scheduled castes, backward classes etc. The petitioners filed a replication starting therein that out of total of 1543 posts advertised through different advertisements since the year 1977, the Board had selected only 211 candidates belonging to the reserved and general categories. According to them, a very large number of posts were still lying vacant. Thereafter, the Director of Agricultural, Haryana, filed a short affidavit categorically stating that there was no vacant post of ADO in the Agricultural Department for candidates belonging to the general category. Learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State conceded that the department had been making requisitions to the Board from time to time for recommending candidates for the posts of ADOs but since the Broad took its own time in selecting candidates, most of the posts were filled up on temporary/ad hoc basis which appointments continued for sometime whereafter the Government issued various instructions regularising those appointments (Sic) submitted that in the year 1988 there were 153 posts vacant against which the Board had recommended a list of candidates referred to herein above.