SUVIDYA YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On December 16, 1991, the Haryana Public Service Commission advertised 18 posts of Principal in the Senior Secondary Schools. On October 1, 1993, the result of the selection was declared. The Commission recommended the names of 30 persons for appointment to the State Government. Aggrieved by the selection, Smt. Survidya Yadav approached this Court through Civil Writ Petition No. 12700 of 1993. She prayed that the result of the selection be quashed and that the respondents be directed to make fresh selection. During the course of arguments, three issues were raised. Firstly, it was contended that the selection and recommendation of the candidates beyond the number of posts which had been advertised was illegal. Secondly, it was submitted that the marks allotted for interview were unreasonable. Lastly, the criterion for selection was challenged as being irrational and arbitrary. The learned Single Judge accepted the first contention and held that the Commission could not have recommended candidates beyond the number of posts which had been actually advertised. The other two contentions were rejected. Resultantly, the Writ Petition was partly allowed. Even Civil Writ Petition No. 15923 of 1993 which was listed for hearing alongwith Civil Writ Petition No. 12700 of 1993 appears to have been decided in the same terms. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant, Suvidya Yadav as also the Haryana Public Service Commission have filed Letters Patent Appeals No. 263 and 562 of 1994.

(2.) Mr. Khehar, learned counsel for the appellant in Letter Patent Appeal No. 263 of 1994 has contended that additional posts had become available prior to the declaration of the result. Thus, the Commission could have recommended the names of suitable persons for appointment against the available posts. In particular, it has been pointed out that 37 posts had been advertised on June 1, 1993. Thereafter, the number of posts was changed to 38 vide advertisement dated December 11, 1993. Subsequently, on February 2, 1994, 12 more posts had become available. On this basis, it has been submitted that the Commission was entitled to recommend the names of available and suitable candidates and had committed no illegality in doing so. The contention has been supported by Mr. R.K. Malik who has appeared on behalf of seven applicants in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 211 of 1995. These applicants have prayed that they be impleaded as parties. It has been claimed by them that on having been found suitable by the Commission, they are entitled to be considered for appointment. No one has appeared on behalf of the Writ Petitioner to contest the Letters Patent Appeal.

(3.) The question that arises for consideration is - Could the Commission recommend the names of persons in excess of the posts which had been actually advertised Admittedly, the Commission had issued the advertisement for 18 posts. The selection was made. The 18 persons have been appointed. Nothing has been disclosed to show as to why the Commission had recommended 12 additional names. Even if it is assumed that certain additional posts had become available prior to the declaration of the result, it is the admitted position that the Commission had issued advertisement on June 1, 1993 for 37 posts. Thereafter, another advertisement had been issued in December, 1993. We are informed that on November 30, 1996, advertisement for 73 posts had been issued. Consequently, it is clear that advertisements had been periodically issued. That being so, the recommendation of persons in excess of the advertised posts would have affected the rights of candidates who had become eligible after the expiry of the last date under the advertisement dated December 16, 1991 and applied for the posts of Principals in pursuance of the subsequent advertisements.