S. Mohan, J. - (1.) In SLP (C) Nos. 18354, 20095/91, 1492, 321, 311, 1923, 2107, 3789, 2488, 2727, 3256, 4199, 4458, 4198, 5355, 5228, 4707, 5037, 5966, 2138/1992, 19291/91, 4625/92, SLP(C) ..... /92(CC 17449), SLP (C) No. 10616/92 and 4928/1992. Delay is condoned. We have heard both the learned counsel for the State of Haryana represented by Mr. P.P. Rao and various counsel appearing for the respondents in all these matters. As per Piara Singh's ease, the law is now well-settled that the ad-hoc employees cannot remain in the respective posts to the detriment of the regular selectees.
(2.) As far as the present cases are concerned,it is agreed between the parties that as against the posts of 1267 teachers advertised for four subjects, namely, (1) Hindi (2) Arts and Crafts (3) Physical Training Instructors (PTI) & (4) Punjabi, 1139 have been selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board.
(3.) Besides, we are informed that for many other subject (with which we are not concerned in these cases) also recommendations have been made by the Subordinate Services Selection Board. The recommendations were made as early as 2nd December, 1988. Since then number of appointments have taken place. As a result, Mr. P.P.Rao appearing for the State of Haryana submits that there are only 329 selectees who require to be appointed as on today. However, this figure is disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. We do not think it is necessary on our part to go into the actual number of selectees who are to be appointed. We consider it fit and proper to take humanistic view rather than going by legal nuances. Therefore, we issue the following directions:- (1) All the remaining selectees as recommended by Subordinate Services Selection Board for the various subjects above mentioned shall be appointed by the State on or before 31st December, 1992. (2) These appointments may be either against the existing vacancies or in the vacancies which are to occur hereafter till 31st December, 1992. (3) The appointments shall be, if necessary either by displacement of ad hoc appointees on the basis of last come first go or by creating supernumerary posts, if need be. (4) The seniority of these persons who have been recommended by Subordinate Services Selection Board shall be reckoned in the order in which they had been assigned ranks by the SSSB. We make it clear that we are giving these direction only having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case. By no means it is to be understood as a precedent to be applicable to the other cases. We further make it clear that those candidates who have been recommended by SSSB and who have been appointed hitherto either by the State on its own pursuant to the order of the High Court, shall not be disturbed. However, the principle of seniority even in these cases, shall be as per the ranks assigned by the SSSB. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.;