t Petition C No 1157 of 1988
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India RK Kapoor Mrs Anil Katiyar not present for the Peti tioner
Rajinder Sachar and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K RAMASWAMY J
This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is a sequel to the order passed by this Court in Sat Der Parasher etc
vs State of Haryana in Writ Petition Nos 887 of 1986 and a batch of connected Special Leave Petitions
Transfer Petitions etc
in December 1985
The State of Haryana made on different dated ad hoc appointments to the posts of Assistant District Attorney
Applications were invited by the Haryana Public Service Commission to make recruitment to the posts of Assistant District Attorney
The ad hoc appointees filed writ petitions under Article 32 and also Special Leave Petitions against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab  Haryana
Their main contention was that they have been regularly recruited though on ad hoc basis after interview by a duly constituted Committee and that they were entitled to be regularised
This Court while disposing of the cases held that the petitioners therein were appointed only on ad hoc basis till suitable candidates were available for regu lar appointment
The interim orders passed on different dates were vacated
It was observed that if amongst the said petitioners any person has been appointed regularly by the Public Service Commission subsequently he shall hold the post pursuant to the order issued on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission
This order of dismissal will not affect him
The petitions are disposed of accordingly
The candidates who have been selected by the 191 Public Service Commission shall be appointed by the State Government on regular basis and any stay order passed by this Court against their appointment is vacated
These petitions are accordingly allowed
Dr YS Chitale learned counsel for the State submits that if any post of the Assistant District Attorney is to be filled up within one year candidates who are selected by the Public Service Commission but have not been appointed shall be appointed in the order of merit  The petitioner was admittedly selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission as commu nicated by letter dated May 7 1986 with his Roll No 446
He stood at Serial No 39 in the order of merit among sixty six selected candidates
In the counter affidavit filed in the earlier group of petitions by the State of Haryana it was admitted that 39 posts were to be filled from among the selected general candidates
The petitioner having been selected on merit and assigned the 39th position was also entitled to be appointed as Assistant District Attorney
It is the petitioner s case that the respondents have arbi trarily and illegally denied him his right to appointment as Assistant District Attorney
It is his case that several representations made in this regard received no considera tion constraining him to approach this Court for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or order or direction to the respondents to give his due appointment
In the counter affidavit it is admitted that the petitioner was selected by the Public Service Commission and he stood at Serial No 39 but the posts earmarked for the general candidates were 37
Conse quently the petitioner could not be appointed
This Court seeing the specific admission made on the earlier occasion that 39 posts were earmarked for general candidates called upon the respondents to explain the contradictory stand set up in the present case
A further affidavit was filed stat ing that averments of earmarking 39 posts for general candi dates is a typographical mistake
The total number of posts notified were 57 the breakup of which is that 11 posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes six posts were reserved for Backward Classes and three posts were reserved for NSML and the remaining 37 were to be filled up from general candi dates
They regretted the typographical error committed in the earlier affidavit
It is also admitted that subsequent notification was issued by the Public Service Commission to select 27 candidates to fill up 27 posts of Assistant Dis trict Attorneys but claiming to be after the expiry of the one year limit set by this Court
The stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit and argued by their counsel is that the direction issued by this Court referred to herein before was strictly adhered to and appointments were given to all the selected candidates
No vacancy had arisen before the expiry of one year as indicated in the judgment and therefore the 192 petitioner could not be appointed as per the undertaking given by the counsel for the State
The petitioner has no fundamental right to appointment
He has to apply afresh and take his chance for selection by the Haryana Public Service Commission
The admitted fact is that the petitioner was one among the selected candidates standing at Serial No 39 in the order of merit by the Public Service Commission and was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Dis trict Attorney
The counsel for the State had given an unequivocal undertaking that if any vacancies arise within one year from the date of the judgment the candidates selected and recommended by the Public Service Commission shall be appointed to those posts in the order of merit
It is uncredible to believe the averment of the State that within one year even one vacancy in the post of Assistant District Attorney had not arisen for appointment when 27 posts were subsequently notified for direct recruitment
It is not their case that all the 27 vacancies had suddenly arisen on a particular date just after the expiry of one year
It would be obvious and it is common knowledge that vacancies kept arising as and when the incumbents of such posts either retire or resign or new posts are created
When this Court had given the direction on the undertaking given by the State that selected candidates would be appointed in vacancies in the said posts that would arise within one year it was expected that the Haryana State Government would comply with the spirit and substance of the direction and not to avoid compliance on the technical plea of expiry of the one year period
We wanted to know the definite dates when the twenty seven vacancies arose but the details have not been placed on the record inspite of the Court s query
On the fact situation arising out of the record of the proceeding it has to be concluded that some of these twenty seven vacancies did arise within the one year period set by this Court in its earlier order but the State Government delayed action to allow the year to run out and to free itself from the purview of the direction
The Court would not permit the State to avoid implementation of the order made by it on any technical or unjustified stand
In these circumstances we are of the considered view that the peti tioner became entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant District Attorney and given appoint ment in accordance with the rules
The respondents are accordingly directed to appoint the petitioner against one of the posts of Assistant District Attorney subject to physical fitness
No costs
NPV Petition disposed of


Summary:
The appellant was charged with the murder of a girl Baisakhi
On information given by Aghani younger sister of the deceased the headless body of the deceased was re covered
The appellant absconded but was found in another village and was brought back by the village volunteer force
On interrogation by the Mukhia Sarpanch and a panch of the Gram Panchayat the appellant made an extrajudicial confession
A blood stained cutting weapon was recovered from a room of the appellant
At his instance some strands of hair were recovered from a place at a short distance 1337 from the place where the dead body had been recovered which were stained with human blood and appeared to be scalp hair of a human female
The appellant was convicted and sentenced to death and the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence
The Courts took into consideration the statements made by Aghani to her mother and to other persons that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant
Aghani however died before her statement could be recorded in a judicial proceeding
It was contended by the appellant that the statements of Aghani were inadmissible that the extra judicial confession was not relevant and that the circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant
Held that the statements of Aghani were not admissible either under section 32 or section 33 Of the Evidence Act
Section 33 had no application as her statement was not made in any judicial proceeding or before any person authorised by law to record the same
The statements did not relate to the cause of her death or to any circumstances relating to her death but related to the death of her sister and did not fall under cl 1 of section 32 which was the only clause which could have any bearing on the question
Held further that though having regard to the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act the Mukhia Sarpanch and panch of the Gram Panchayat to whom the extra judicial confession was made were persons in authority within the meaning Of section 24 Evidence Act no threat promise or inducement for making the confession was proved
The facts that the appellant was brought back to the Village by the village volunteer force and that it took two or three hours before he made the confession do not indicate that the confession was not voluntary
There was nothing to show that the confession contained any untrue or inaccurate statement
The circumstantial evidence may not be sufficient by itself to prove the guilt of the appellant but it afforded sufficient corroboration to the confession and the corroboration was of such a nature as to connect the appellant with the murder