http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: STATE O HARYANA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MISS AJAY WALIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/07/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA.

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R       Leave granted.      We have  heard learned counsel on both sides.      This   appeal   by special  leave  from the judgment of the Punjab   7 Haryana High Court, made on October  15, 1996 in CWP No. 12474/95.      The admitted  facts are  that  in June 1980 there was a requisition   in the  Irrigation  Department for filling  up of four vacancies of sub-Divisional Clerks.  The Subordinate service selection  Board advertised  the posts.  Instead  of selecting   four candidates  , it  prepared  a  list  of  28 candidates  in   November  1982  and  recommended  them  for appointment Eight  candidates  including the respondent were recommended  for   appointment  in   Hathnikund  Procurement Circle. The  Superintendent Engineer wrote a letter  to  the selection   Board    on  November  3,  1982  stating    that procurement   Circle  had  not requisitioned for recruitment of  any   candidate  and   that  he  could  not  make    any appointment;  accordingly,   he  returned  the  request  the request for appointment.      It would  appear that  the respondent  has been  making application   to various  authorities from time  to time but the same   failed to bear any fruit.  As a consequence, writ petition came    so  be  filed  in  October    1996  seeking issuance of  writ write  of mandamus  for appointment to the post of  Sub-Divisional Clerk.  The High  court allowed  the write petition  and directed    the  state  to  appoint  the appellant forthwith  on the  post of S.S.C in any Department of the  State  of haryana. The High court also awarded costs quantified at Rs, 10,000/-Thus, this appeal by special leave challenging the  order of  the High  Court. The facts reveal that requisition   was   made  for recruitment  only    four candidates. The  service selection   Board  had no power and jurisdiction to   select  as many   as 28 candidates  and to recommend     their  names   to  various   Departments   for appointment. in  the circumstances,  when the Superintending Engineer     Hathnikund  circle     had   not  requisitioned appointment of  8 candidates  including the  respondent,  he rightly not  acceded to  and returned  the list to the Board stating   that he  could not make  any appointment as the ad

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

hoc sub-Divisional  Clerks   already working   had  obtained stay form  the High  Court   against their  termination.  In these circumstance,  the direction asking the superintending Engineer to appoint the respondent, issued by the High court is obviously  illegal moreover,  the selection  was made  in 1982 and  writ petition   came  to be  filed in  1995, i.e., after and  inordinate  delay.    Representations  repeatedly repeatedly given  to various  arthouities fo not furnish her fresh course  of   action to  file writ  petition. The  High court is  wholly unjustified to have enteriained and allowed the writ petition.      The appeal is accordingly  allowed. The Judgment of the High Court   is  set asidce.   The  writ  petition    stands dismissed.  No costs.