JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE PETITIONERS APPROACHED THIS COURT WITH A PRAYER THAT "THE WAITING HIT OF CLERKS MENTIONED BY THE SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD AS A RESULT OF SELECTION LIST ANNOUNCED ON 15.10.1989" FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE POSTS OF CLERKS IN DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE OF HARYANA BE QUASHED.IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE MOTION BENCH, THE RESPONDENTS, VIZ.THE STATE OF HARYANA AND THE SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE BOARD) APPEARED AND POINTED OUT THAT THEY WERE ACTING IN CONFORMITY WITH THE JUDGMENT OF A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT (IN SUDESH KUMARI V.STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.), 1991 (1) R.S.J. 18, whereby it was directed that "till such persons who are higher in merit are appointed, the selection list prepared on 15th October 1989 would not lapse irrespective of any instructions to the contrary issued by the State of Haryana, if any. " The Motion Bench heard the counsel for the parties. Their Lordships even recorded the statement of Mr. M. S. Madan, the present Secretary of the Board. They had certain reservations about the view expressed by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Bench directed that the case be placed before a larger Bench "to reconsider the decision rendered in Sudesh Kumari's case (supra ). " This is how the matter has been placed before us. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) ON July 22, 1987, the Board advertised "some posts of Clerks for various Haryana Government Officers. " Factually, the Board had received requisitions from different Departments for a total of 662 posts. In pursuance to the advertisement, a large number of candidates submitted their applications. After conducting the written test, the Board selected a total of 5373 candidates on October 15, 1989. It recommended the names of 1692 candidates to different Departments. Certain persons, who were lower in merit were actually appointed, while others, though higher in merit, were not appointed as the department/s to which their names had been recommended were unable to accommodate them. Some of the candidates, who had failed to get appointment approached this Court through C. W. P. No. 8187 of 1990 (Sudesh Kumari v. State of Haryana and ors. ). A Division Bench of this Court accepted this writ petition vide judgment dated October 10, 1990. It, inter -alia, gave the following directions : "by directing the Board at this stage to recommend the names of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons who are higher in merit and whose names have been received back from the departments as they could not be appointed, would at this juncture disturb the persons who have already been appointed in the other departments, who are though lower in merit. We would not like to disturb such persons who have been appointed in the other departments who are lower in merit. Under the circumstances, we direct that from now onwards whenever a requisition is received from any department for filling the posts of Clerks, all persons who are higher in merit as compared to the last person who might have been appointed as a Clerk, till today on the basis of the merit prepared on 15th October, 1989, shall be appointed first. Till such persons who are higher in merit are appointed, the selection list prepared on 15th October, 1989 would not lapse irrespective of any instructions to the contrary issued by the State of Haryana, if any. "
(3.) IT appears that the decision in Sudesh Kumari's case (Supra) was followed in some other cases also. As a result of the above noted directions, no posts of Clerks have been advertised by the Board after July, 1987. The two petitioners (Petitioner No. 3 having already withdrawn), who had been rejected by the Board, have approached this Court with the prayer that the list prepared by the Board on October 15, 1989 be quashed. They aver that the job opportunities available in the State of Haryana are "nominal" and it is likely that "by the time the waiting list is exhausted, they would be over -age and ineligible to apply for the posts. " According to the petitioners, the selection list prepared by the Board cannot remain valid forever and has to be 'scrapped'. Otherwise, the waiting list of 4000 candidates would last for a decade which would have the effect of depriving various eligible persons of the chance to compete for the posts of Clerks. They also aver that the list prepared by the Board was not fair. Persons, who had not applied for the posts in accordance with the conditions of the advertisement, had been selected for the jobs on account of extraneous considerations. Even those who had not appeared or had failed in the written test had been selected on the recommendations of the politicians "then in power" and "the candidates belonging to Meham and Sirsa Districts" were unduly favoured. It has also been pointed out that the selections made by the Board for the posts of Taxation inspectors were also arbitrary and an enquiry by the C. B. I. had been ordered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. They aver that the candidates, whose names are not borne on the selection list had been recommended for appointment in the Excise and Taxation Department for extraneous considerations. Such persons as were lower in merit had been recommended for appointment to 'a' Grade Offices while those who were higher in merit are still awaiting appointments. According to the petitioners, 207 posts were actually available at the time of advertisement. As such, the number of selected candidates including those on the waiting list could not have exceeded 300. However, the Board had arbitrarily prepared a merit list of 5373 candidates which was not at all justified or valid. Accordingly, the petitioners maintain that there is no justification for the Board to maintain a waiting list of about 4000 candidates especially when about 1300 persons have already been appointed. They maintain that the action is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On behalf of the respondents, a written statement has been filed by Mr. M. S. Madan, the Secretary of the Board.;