Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) Briefly the facts are that the Subordinate Services Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) advertised 13 posts of Assistant Public Relations Officers in the Department of Public Relations. The petitioners in response to the advertisement applied for the post to the Board. They were selected and their names were recommended by the Board vide letter dated May 2, 1977 to the Director Public Relations Punjab - respondent No. 3 for their appointment as such.
(2.) On May 3, 1977, the President of India issued a Presidential Notification dated May 3, 1977 (copy Annexure P. 1) ordering all the Heads of Departments in the State to regularise the services of all ad hoc employees who had completed one year's service on March 31, 1977 and fulfilled the conditions enumerated therein. The notification was challenged by some selected candidates in this Court. It is alleged, a Full Bench up-held the notification in Daljit Singh Minhas and others Vs. The State of Punjab and others, decided on Oct. 24, 1977, since reported as A.I.R. 1978 Punjab and Haryana 117 . It is further stated that an undertaking as given in the writ petition by the State to the effect that the claims of the selected candidates by the Board or the Punjab Education Department Recruitment Committee had been held in abeyance and their appointments would be made against the posts which remained unfilled after regularisation of the ad hoc employees and the vacancies which might have arisen after March 31, 19/6. It is then alleged that the respondents regularised the services of 6 ad hoc employees and had appointed three persons from the select list but still there were four more vacancies available against which the petitioners could be appointed It is also alleged that they belonged to scheduled caste and were selected against the reserved quota meant for them. The petitioners, it is averred, are not being appointed by the respondents in spite of the vacancies with them Consequently, they have come up in this petition praying that the respondents be directed to appoint them against the said vacancies The respondents have contested the writ petition.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were selected by the Board in 1977 and there are vacancies against which they could be appointed but still they have not been given appointments.;