GAJE NAND GARG Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Did the respondents (State of Haryana and others) act fairly in denying appointment to the appellants to the posts of Forest Rangers ? This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) In December 1982, the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, advertised 15 posts of Forest Rangers. 11 of these posts were reserved for members belonging to the categories of Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes and Ex-servicemen. Four posts had to be filled up purely on the basis of merit. However, it was specifically stipulated in the advertisement that if "suitable candidates belonging to these three reserved categories are not available, then 10 out of these 11 posts will be filed up by candidates belonging to general category." The petitioners applied for these posts. They competed. They were placed to Sr. Nos 5, 7, 11 and 13. They were not appointed. They filed CWP No. 3239 of 1983. The State of Haryana took the position that the petitioners had no right to be appointed against the posts reserved for the members of Scheduled Castes etc. This claim was upheld. The writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) In the year 1986, one Sohan Lal approached this court through CWP No. 4716 of 1986. He was at Sr. No. 8 in the merit list. He prayed for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him. His claim was upheld. In compliance with the directions given by the court, the respondents issued the letter of appointment to Sohan Lal. In fact, it is conceded that all the selected candidates including the one who had been placed at Sr. No 15 in the merit list were given letters of appointment. Since the present appellants had not been offered appointment, they approached this court for the second time through a fresh petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge observed that the petition "has to be dismissed applying the principle of constructive re judicata ..." Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants have filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.