- (1.) The petitioners have filed the present writ petition claiming appointment to the post of Workshop Attendant on the ground that persons lower in merit to them in the joint merit list prepared by the respondent- State are in service. The petitioners' claim arises from the following factual matrix.
(2.) The Director, Industrial Training and Vocational Education, Haryana advertised 64 posts of Workshop Attendants, out of which 36 were in the open category and the rest in various reserved categories including 14 for the Backward Class candidates. In spite of the fact that petitioners had applied for these posts, they were not interviewed for being considered for appointment on these posts. Without considering the petitioners, appointment letters were issued in March 1998 on the basis of a select list prepared by the department. The petitioners being aggrieved against their non-consideration as also selection and appointment made, filed C.W.P. No. 11767 of 1998. In that writ petition, even though the petitioner and other candidates had challenged the selection, however, the matter was decided by this Hon'ble Court with the following directions :- "The question that remains to be answered is that at this stage what relief should be granted to the petitioners for having been denied the right of consideration. According to us, the best course would be that the petitioners should be interviewed by a similarly constituted Selection Committee for Jind Zone which was constituted for interviewing the candidates on March 17, 1998 and they be also interviewed with the same criteria as the candidates were interviewed on March 17, 2000. If all or any one of them make(s) the grade better than any of the candidate(s) appointed in the general category, then as many candidates who had already been appointed might have to make room for the petitioners. If the posts are lying vacant, in that eventuality the selected persons need not be disturbed." As a result of the directions aforementioned, the petitioners were interviewed afresh. In the meanwhile, a complaint was also made against the merit list prepared by the department. The complaint was inquired and it was found that the merit list initially prepared was without adhering to or following the order of merit. Accordingly, a fresh merit list was prepared. The petitioners were also included in this list. Petitioner No. 1, who belongs to General Category, was placed at merit no. 68-A and petitioner no. 2, who belongs to Backward Class "A" Category, was placed at merit no. 13-A in the fresh merit list prepared after the petitioners were interviewed.
(3.) On preparation of the fresh list, it transpired that some candidates were lower in merit and did not deserve appointment whereas others higher in merit were to be appointed. These candidates included one Shri Dharmender Singh in the General Category, who had merit rank of 69, Shri Ajmer Singh in the General Category having merit no. 111 and Shri Safia in the Backward Class "A" Category having merit no. 18. The State Government issued show cause notices to the aforementioned candidates and after giving them opportunity of being heard, terminated their services vide order issued in January, 2001. The aforementioned three persons along with others, whose services were terminated, filed writ petitions in this Court, which were ultimately dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The matter was then taken up in appeal. The Division Bench allowed these LPAs (LPA Nos. 28, 29, 51 and 52 of 2002) as also LPAs filed by the aforementioned three candidates, vide orders dated February 21, 2002, with the following directions :- "We have considered the respective arguments. In our opinion, the appeals deserve to be allowed because dismissal of their petitions by the learned Single Judge is based on a patently erroneous interpretation of the directions given by the Division Bench in CWP Nos. 11767 and 11962 of 1998 that selected candidates should not be disturbed if vacant posts of Workshop Attendant are available. If the said direction is considered in the backdrop of the fact that the candidates who had been selected on the basis of interviews held in March, 1998 had been impleaded as party respondent in those petitions and, therefore, they did not get opportunity to represent their cause, there can be no difficulty in holding that the Court wanted to protect the services of those who had already been appointed on the basis of joint merit list. If the Division Bench, which had dealt with CWP Nos. 11767 and 11962 of 1998, had been apprised of the true position of vacancies, then it would have given a clear direction to the official respondents to adjust those who were already in service. However, as the respondents had misrepresented the facts about the vacancy position, the Bench did not give explicit direction and felt satisfied by directing that they may not be disturbed if vacant posts are available. In our considered view, that direction has to be interpreted as entitling the appellants to be adjusted against the posts which were available as on the date of preparation of fresh combined merit list and as a large number of vacant posts were available on that day, the cancellation of their appointments cannot be sustained." The Division Bench, therefore, was clearly of the view that those persons who were already in service, were to be adjusted against posts which were available on the date of preparation of fresh combined merit list. The Division Bench further concluded that on that date a large number of vacant posts were actually available. On this basis, cancellation of appointment of these candidates was annulled.;