- (1.) - Heard learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 was serving the appellant-State as a constable in the Police Department. He applied for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in response to an advertisement issued in that regard. The respondent appeared at the written examination and viva voce test held for selecting suitable candidates for appointment. He was, however, not selected and he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court, which was allowed by a perfunctory judgment which is quoted below in its entirety: - "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through their pleadings, we find that the petitioner, who has got excellent career and has got good marks in the written test as well as interview and also possesses very good sports career, deserves to be selected on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. In fact, the petitioner is already working as a constable in the Police Department, Punjab and is wholly suitable for the job. "Following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 4088 of 1991 (reported in AIR 1992 SC 80), we exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct the State Government to consider the petitioner as duly selected for the post of ASI and appoint him on that post forthwith. In view of the necessary relief having been granted to the petitioner, we need not go into the further contentions raised by the petitioner and this will not serve as a precedent."
(3.) It appears that the High Court took upon itself the decision of the claim of the respondent to be appointed to the post and, while doing so, was greatly impressed by his service record as a constable and the marks obtained by him at the selection test, however it did not take into account the merits of the selected candidates and of other candidates who, although not selected for appointment, were more meritorious than the respondent.;