STATE OF HARYANA ETC Vs. SATYA PARKASH ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the Public Service Commission can assume any function which is not authorised by either of Articles 320-321 of the Constitution of India is the principal question which calls for answer in these two L. P. As Nos. 434 and 435 of 1938. These have been filed by the State of Haryana under clause X of the Letters Patent calling in question the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court to it to fill up 19 posts of Assistant District Industries Officer/development Officers (later designated as Industrial Promotion officer) by direct recruitment out of the list sumitted by the Haryana Public Service Commission.

(2.) THIS question has arisen in the following circumstances : On October 15, 1984, the appellant sent a requisition to the Haryana Public Service Commission for selecting 19 Assistant District Industries Officers/development Officers. However, later on, on October 26, 1984 and November 28, 1984, the appellant requested the Haryana Public Service Commission to advertise for only eight posts. Despite this request, the Haryana Public Service Commission hastened to advertise and sought applications from the eligible candidates for filing up 19 putt of assistant District Industries Officers/development Officer. The Haryana Public Service Commission wrote to the Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Industries Department on June 11, 198s, that it had fixed the interview for the above-mentioned posts in the Industries Department on June 25, 26 and 27, 1985, at Haryana Bhavan, Copernicus Road, New Delhi and requested the Financial Commissioner to assist the Commission in an advisory capacity. On June 22,1985, the Financial Commissioner wrote to the Director of Industries, Haryana, to attend the interview but insist upon the Haryana Public Service Commission for filling up only eight posts of Assistant District Industries Officers/development Officers as mentioned in their letters dated November 28, 1984, and April 25, 1985. It appears that the interview was not held on the date fixed. However, it was held on some subsequent date, but in all subsequent communications addressed by the appellant, it was emphasized that the representative of the Government, who was called upon to assist the Commission in an advisory capacity should insist upon the Government stand to fill up only eight posts of Assistant District Industries Officers/development Officers. After the interview, the Haryana Public Service Commission made the selection and declared the result which was published in the Daily Tribune on August 18, 1981 On August 17, 1985 the Commission recommended 19 candidates with the following Roll Numbers in the order of merit of appointment to the said posts :

(3.) THE State in its reply took a firm stand that the Haryana Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for filling up 19 posts of Assistant District Industries Officers/development Officers, though even before the advertisement was made, the Government have told the Commission to call for applications for selection of only 8 persons. Again, despite persistent requests from it, the Commission did not issue a corrigendum for inviting applications for eight posts instead of 19 already advertised. The Commission recommended 19 candidates for appointment. Further pleaded that the appellant was under no obligation to accept the recommendation of Haryana Public Service Commission in view of the reduction in number of the posts from 19 to 8 and the writ-petitioners had no right for appointment to the posts.