STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

MISS AJAY WALIA

JULY 7, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B

Service Law:

Appointment-Requisition for filling 4 vacancies-Subordinate Service Selection Board preparing a list of 28 candidates and recommending them C for appointment--8 candidates recommended for appointment in a particular circle-Returned by the Circle in-charge stating there is 110 requirement-One candidate approaching the High Court-Mandamus issued for his appoi11tme111-0n appeal held, Board has nc power to recommend more 110. of candidates than requisitioned-High Court's order illegal-Selection made ill D 1982-Writ petition filed i11 1995-l11ordi11ate delay-Repeated representations do 1101 furnish fresh cause of actiu11 to file writ petition.

Co11stitutio11 of llldi~Art. 226 :

Writ jurisdiction--Not to be exercised when there is inordinate E delay-Repeated represe11tatio11s to allthorities do not give fresh cause of action to file writ petition.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4455 of 1997.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.96 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12474 of 1995.

B.S. Chahar and Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.

B.S. Gupta and R.N. Verma for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the H .

SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A Punjab & 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 C Circle had not requisitioned for recruitment of any candidate and that he could not make any appointment; accordingly, he returned the request for appointment.

It would appear that the respondent has been making applications D to various authorities from time to time but the same failed to bear any fruit. As a consequence, writ petition came to be filed in October, 1996 seeking issuance of writ of mandamus for appointment to the post of Sub-Divisional Clerk. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State to appoint the appellant forthwith on the post of S.D.C.

E 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 of 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 G appointment as the ad hoc Sub-Divisional Clerks already working had obtained stay from the High Court against their termination. In these circumstances, 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, H i.e., after an inordinate delay. Representations repeatedly given to various

c:::

STATE v. AJAYWALIA 453

authorities do not furnish her fresh course of action to file writ petition. A The High Court is wholly unjustified to have entertained and allowed the writ petition.

The appeal is accordingly allowed. The Judgment of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs;

G.N.

Appeal allowed.