LAWS(P&H)-1988-2-67

DEVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 29, 1988
DEVINDER SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 4903 of 1983; 730, 746, 3794 and 4047 of 1984; 4594 and 5646 of 1985; 677 and 1421 of 1986; and 129 of 1987. All these writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts but pertain to different stages in their chronological sequence. However, the crucial questions both of law and facts involved in them are common. Reference to parties, pleadings and documents shall, however, be made from C.W.P. No. 746 of 1984 unless otherwise specifically mentioned.

(2.) The Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (for short 'the Board'), issued two advertisements in the years 1978 and 1979 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for 20 posts and 60 posts of Zilladars respectively in the Irrigation Department, Haryana. Advertisement No. 9 of 1979 was published on 22nd December, 1979 and is Annexure P.1. In response to these advertisements, the petitioners applied for these posts. They amongst other applicants were interviewed and ultimately the Board recommended the names of 205 candidates, including the petitioners. The recommendation was accordingly sent to the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Haryana, respondent No. 2. The petitioners claim that all of them had the requisite qualifications. They are Graduates and have knowledge of Hindi up to Matriculation Standard.

(3.) The Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Haryana, respondent No. 2, - vide his letter dated 3rd March, 1982 circulated a list of 79 such candidates who were appointed as Zilladar candidates on training at a fixed salary of Rs. 550 per month till the completion of their training. He issued yet another list of 126 direct candidates, - vide his letter dated 12th March, 1982 appointing them as candidate Zilladars under training at the same salary. The names of the petitioners figured in these lists. In this manner, all the 205 candidates recommended by the Board were so appointed by the Chief Engineer, respondent No. 2.