PAWAN KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Haryana in the Excise and Taxation Department had sent a requisition for 29 posts of Taxation Inspectors to the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana and an advertisement to that effect was issued by the Subordinate Services Selection Board in leading daily newspapers on 22.7.1982. The written test for the posts was held on 22/23.5.1983, Those who had qualified in the written test were called for interview sometime in December, 1985. Petitioner was one of them. It may be observed here that before the interview took place, the Haryana Government vide letter dated 4.7.1985 had sent to the Subordinate Services Selection Board a revised requisition of 79 posts of Taxation Inspectors (including the earlier 29 posts). It is the case of the petitioner that he was placed at Sr. No. 19 in the merit list prepared by the Board in the general category candidates and all the formalities for appointment had been undertaken by the petitioner and he was awaiting appointment. It may be observed that the Subordinate Services Selection Board had recommended the names of only 49 candidates against the requisition of 79 candidates.

(2.) Some of the persons who had applied for the posts of Taxation Inspectors and were not selected filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the entire selection. The present petitioner was one of the respondents in those cases. An interim order was passed by this Court restraining the respondents from making appointments of Taxation Inspectors from the select list. Ultimately, a Full Bench of this Court dismissed those writ petitions on 17.7.1986 and upheld the selection made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. The judgment is now reported as Joginder Singh vs. The State of Haryana and others, 1986 3 SLR 644.

(3.) That some other candidates who were unsuccessful in the selection for the posts of Taxation Inspectors filed another writ petition in this Court bearing No. 2839 of 1986 primarily challenging the selection of those candidates who were over and above the original 29 advertised posts. Initially, a stay was granted regarding the appointments. However, on 10.3.1987 by an order of a Division Bench of this Court, the stay was vacated regarding the appointments over and above the initial advertised posts. Later on, the State Government had re-advertised the posts and the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition No. 2839 of 1986 got their writ petition dismissed as infructuous,