BIMLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment of mine will dispose of C.W.P. Nos.78, 512, 660 and 2445 of 1986, as common question of law and fact are involved in all these cases. For facility of reference, facts of Bimla Devi's case (C.W.P No. 78 of 1986) are being adverted to.

(2.) In the year 1979, the petitioner had started working as Junior Mistress (Cutting, Tailoring and Embroidery) in Government Industrial Training Institute in Haryana, on ad hoc basis. An advertisement was issued some where in the year 1982 by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, (hereinafter called the Board) for regular appointment of certain Tailoring Mistresses in the Industrial Triaining Institutes in Haryana. The petitioner was one of the candidates for the post. The interviews for the post took place in October, 1985. However, the petitioner was not selected. This led the petitioner to file the present writ petition. All this time, the petitioner had continued working as a Tailoring Mistress on ad hoc basis. The Motion Bench, while admitting the writ petition, had stayed the termination of the service of the petitioner.

(3.) The written statement on behalf of the Board is dated 31st January, 1986. It means that when this written statement was drafted, the Board had in its possession some criteria, which was allegedly adopted at the time of selection of the candidates. The file containing the criteria should have been kept as the case was pending and should have been made available to this Court. Since that file containing the criteria has not been produced, are adverse inference can be drawn against the Board. However, on this ground I - am not inclined to set aside the selection of the candidates who have already been selected; but rather deem it proper that the petitioners in all the writ petitions who had worked for a sufficiently long time prior to the interviews and have continued in the posts of Junior Mistresses/Tracers, should also be given appointment along with all the selected candidates, even though it may entail creation of additional posts. The benefit of the past service of the petitioners would be given if they are entitled in law to such a benefit. The petitioners as well as the selected candidate should be given regular appointment forthwith. For the sake of clarification it may be observed that the abovesaid directions would enure only to the petitioners in these cases as well as to the private respondents i.e. the selectors.