RAM DATT Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The name of the petitioner, who was holder of a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture, was recommended by the Subordinate Staff Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as "the Board) for appointment to the post of Agriculture Development Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the ADO'), applications wherefore had been invited vide advertisement No. 7/77-9/79 1/83, 4/86 and 1/88. Recommendation (qua his name) made by the Board for the appointment aforementioned was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29.6.1990 of the Board. In that list, the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 106. The respondents issued appointment letters to other selected candidates but no appointment letter came to be issued to the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that he could not be appointed as "there is no vacant post of A.D.O. In Haryana against which he (petitioner) can be appointed." Qua that averment, the plea raised by the petitioner is that there are more than 50 posts of ADOs which are lying vacant in the various districts of Haryana.

(2.) The petitioner thereby claimed a legal right of appointment against one of more than 50 posts of ADOs which are lying vacant.

(3.) In similar circumstances, some of the candidates whose name had been recommended by the Board but in whose favour appointment letters had not been issued by the Department, filed Civil Writ Petition No. 4307 of 1987. The petitioners therein called into question the plea of Haryana Government "that since the Govt. has taken a decision not to appoint candidates beyond serial No.22 of list of 149 candidates recommended by the Board, the petitioners did not have any cause of action."