SATYA PARKASH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an applicant for the 14 posts of Fisheries Officers advertised by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana on July 7, 1988. Out of these 14 posts, 7 were to be filled up on the basis of merit while the remaining seven were reserved for different categories of persons. The petitioner competed and was placed at Sr. No. 7 in order of merit. In spite of selection, the petitioner was not appointed. Consequently, he has approached this Court through the present writ petition with a prayer that a writin the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondents to appoint him as a Fisheries Officer.

(2.) On behalf of the respondents, it has been averred that a number of persons who had been recruited on purely ad hoc basis, had filed various writ petitions in this Court and obtained interim orders of stay. As a result, only 13 candidates selected by the Board could be appointed. The remaining persons including the petitioner were not appointed. It has been further pointed out on behalf of the respondents that in fact, the services of a number of persons who had been appointed on ad hoc basis have been regularised in pursuance to the directions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 3 SCT 201. As a result, the petitioner though one of the first seven in order of merit has not been appointed.

(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard. Mr. R.K. Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner made a categorical submission that in fact, posts were lying vacant with the respondents. Mr. Jaswant Singh was granted time to obtain instructions. He states that vacancies are available.