R.P. Sethi, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) The petitioners who are ex-servicemen were appointed as Clerks on ad hoc basis have prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to appoint them permanent in view of the instructions issued by the Government of Haryana being Annexures P/3 and P/4 applicable to the Disabled Ex-servicemen and further grant them all consequential benefits. It is submitted that in view of Annexure P/4, the petitioners were not obliged to be subjected to any test and were required to be regularised by the respondent-Subordinate Services Selection Board. It is not disputed that the number of Ex-Servicemen exceeded the posts which were available for being regularised. It has already been held by this Court in Naib Subedar Babu Lal Nagina v. State of Haryana and another, 1992(3) SCT 565 (P&H)(DB) : 1992(4) SLR 470 (Pb. & Hry.) that the purpose of providing a test for making selection to the post is to select from suitable candidates for the particular post available out of the number of suitable candidates. If the number of candidates is more than the number of posts to be filled, the authorities can provide for a written. test for selecting the suitable persons. On the basis of the test held, the respondents have the liberty to make the selection on the basis of the merit. The petitioners themselves have filed Civil Writ Petition No. 7938 of 1981 in this Court which was disposed of by the Division Bench on 31.10.1991 holding : "Mr. Surjewala, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has placed on record a short affidavit of Shri R.R. Banswal, Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra to the effect that requisition letter dated 7.5.1991 has been sent to the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, selecting the Ex- Servicemen candidates to fill the posts reserved for that category. Learned counsel states that till selection of the candidates, the petitioners will continue in terms of the letters of appointment by virtue of which they were appointed. He further states that it is open to the petitioners to apply for the fresh selection being made. This satisfies Shri V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, in view of the above facts brought on record, the petition is rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such." Being aware of the fact that the petitioners are liable to appear in the test, they voluntarily appeared in the test but could not obtain the requisite qualifying marks in the written test with the result that they were not selected. Respondent No. 3, the Board, have specifically stated in their written statement that 994 candidates appeared in the written test for the posts of Clerk out of which 429 were Ex-Servicemen and 565 candidates were dependent of Ex-Servicemen. Petitioners also appeared in the written test. It is further submitted that only 99 Ex-Servicemen qualified the written test and result was displayed on the Notice Board of Board's office on 19.2.1992. Only 99 candidates Ex-Servicemen could qualify the written test held for the said posts and their names were recommended for appointment to the various departments. It is further stated that only written test was conducted and merit list was prepared solely on the basis of written test and no interview was held. The selection is purely based on performance of the candidates in the written test. The seniority list prepared by the answering respondent shows that Ex-Servicemen have been shown from Serial Nos. 1 to 99. Thereafter the seniority list of dependent of Ex-Servicemen was prepared. The seniority list of dependents of Ex-Servicemen is shown in the selection list from Serial Nos. 1 to 84, 84-A, 85 to 419. Therefore, it is wrong to allege that joint seniority list of Ex-Servicemen and dependents of Ex-servicemen was prepared. In fact seniority list of dependents of Ex-Servicemen is quite distinct and separate from that of Ex-Servicemen. It is further submitted that all the petitioners appeared in the written test but could not get 40% qualifying marks in the written test as per advertisement and hence were not selected. So the petitioners have no cause of action and no legal rights of the petitioners have been violated and as such they are not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
(3.) Having failed to qualify the test, the petitioners can have no grievance regarding the holding of the test particularly in view of the judgment of the Court in Babu Lal Nagina's case (supra) and the judgment delivered in Civil Misc. No. 3125 of 1992 in Civil Writ Petition No.-2662 of 1992 'Moji Ram v. State of Haryana decided on 24.4.1992 there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. This judgment would, however, not prevent the respondent-authorities from considering the case of the petitioners for regularisation if permissible under the Rules and the instructions issued in that behalf. Petition dismissed.;