R.S. Mongia, J.@mdashBy this judgment three letters patent appeals Nos. 1180, 1190 and 1182 of 1988 shall be disposed of The first two letters patent appeals have been filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 4307 of 1988, decided on 3rd October, 1988, allowing the writ petition in which" there were 17 Petitioners, One of the above appeal has been filed by the State and the other by Ravinder Bhatnagar and others, private Respondents in the writ, petition. The third letters patent appeal (No. 1182 of 1988) has been filed by the State of Haryana against the judgment in C.W.P. No. 7160 of 1987, which was allowed on the same state, i.e., 3rd October, 1988 in the same terms as C.W.P. No. 4307 of 1987. There were two Petitioners in C.W.P. No. 7160 of 1987.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the present Respondents (writ Petitioners) had not been appointed by the State of Haryana as Taxation. Inspectors even though they had been duly selected for these posts by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter called the ''Board'') in an open competition.
3. On 22nd July, 1982, an advertisement appeared in various, daily news-papers on behalf of the Board, inviting applications for 29 posts of Taxation Inspectors, mentioning therein the academic qualifications etc. prescribed for the said posts. In response to the said advertisement, the writ-Petitioners had applied and appeared in the written test held on 22nd/23rd May, 1983. Since in addition to the original requisition for 29 posts sent by the State of Haryana, certain more posts became available, the State Government sent revised requisition on 4th July, 1985 for 79 posts of Taxation Inspectors to the Board. Accordingly, the Board made selection against the aforesaid posts and forwarded its recommendations of 49 candidates only to the State Government on 14th January, 1986. An intimation thereof was sent to the selected candidates also, which included the writ Petitioners. The Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, on receipt of the aforesaid recommendations from the Board, got the character verification/antecedents as well as the medical examination of the Petitioners done.
4. Certain persons who were not successful in the selection made by the Board, approached this Court by way of C.W.P. No. 833 of 1986 Joginder Singh v. The State of Hairyana and Ors. for challenging the selection of the present Respondents (writ-Petitioners). The main challenge in that writ petition was the allocation of high percentage of marks for interview. Since the matter was sub-judice and the very selection of the present Respondents (writ-Petitioners) was challenged, the State Government did not issue appointment letters to them. Ultimately, the matter was decided by Full Bench of this Court and the writ petition was dismissed on 17th July, 1986. The judgment is now reported in 1986 (3) S.L.R. 645. Incidently it may be mentioned that the State''s stand in Joginder Singh''s case (supra) was that the selection was perfectly valid and they were going to give appointments to the selected candidates. Meanwhile, another writ petition (C.W.P. No. 2839 of 1986) was filed by some persons in which the recommendations of the Board against the revised requisition for 79 posts was challenged. This Court stayed the appointments of the Taxation Inspectors over and above 29 posts for which initially advertisement had been made by the Board. Against that order, some of the present writ-Petitioners who were Respondents in that case, moved the Supreme Court in C.P. No. 304 of 1986. Ultimately, the Supreme Court disposed of the matter with certain observations, which may not be very relevant for the disposal of these appeals. On 10th March, 1987, the writ Petitioners in C.W.P. No. 2839 of 1986 moved a misc application, on which the following order was passed on the same day:
Civil Misc. No. 770 of 1987 allowed as prayed. In the additional affidavit dated March 5, 1987, filed by the Petitioners in Civil Misc. No. 365 of 1987, it has been stated that as the Haryana Government has notified the vacancies for fresh recruitment and applications, for that purpose have also been invited, the main petition has become infructuous and may be dismissed as such. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
5. Before a fresh advertisement was issued for filling the posts of Taxation Inspectors, the above-said writ petitions i.e. C.W.P. Nos. 4307 of 1987 and 7160 of 1987 were filed, seeking the relief as stated in the opening paragraph of this judgment. These writ petitions were allowed by learned single Judge on 3rd October, 1988. It may be stated here that during the pendency of the writ petitions, it was ordered by this Court that 20 posts be kept vacant and not filled during the pendency of the writ petitions in order to give effect to the order that may be made in the writ petitions/Even during the pendency of these letter patent appeals, it was ordered by a Division Bench of this Court on 31st May, 1985 that 20 posts which were kept vacant and not filled up during the pendency of the writ petitions in order to give effect to the order that may be made in the writ petitions, would be now kept vacant during the pendency of the appeals as well.
6. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State has reiterated the contentions which were raised before the learned Single Judge, which are:
(i) That there is no statutory or legal right which is conferred on the writ-Petitioners by mere selection and they cannot ask for a Mandamus to the State Government to issue them appointments.
(ii) That there is no statutory duty on the State Government to give appointments.
(iii) That the writ was barred by the principles of res-judicata because the writ Petitioners were a party in C.W.P. No. 2839 of 1986, which was dismissed as infructuous on 10th March, 1987 and since the State Government had taken stand in that writ petition that it had decided not to appoint selected candidates beyond serial No. 22 out of the list of 49 candidates recommended by the Board, the present writ Petitioners could not ask for appointments in the writ petitions.
7. In support of the above two contentions (i) and (ii) that mere selection does not give right to a candidate, and it is upto the State Government whether to give appointment or not, the Appellants'' counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marvaha and Ors. 1973 (2) S.L.R. 137,
8. As far as the plea of res judicata is concerned, this is just to be noted and rejected. Firstly, it will be apparent from the order dated 10th March, 1987 that'' earlier C.W.P. No. 2839 of 1986 was not disposed of on merits. Rather on the application of the writ Petitioners in that case, the same had been dismissed as in-fructuous. Apart from that, neither the eligibility nor the entitlement of the present writ Petitioners for appointment to the posts of Taxation Inspectors was directly or substantially in issue in the previous writ petition filed against the present writ Petitioners, nor the same was decided. Consequently, the writ petitions were, not barred by the principle of res judicata.
9. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in these letters patent appeals which are dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
10. Before parting with the judgment, it may be observed that, as indicated above, 20 posts of Taxation Inspectors had been Kept vacant for the writ Petitioners,--vide order of this Court dated 31st May, 1989. They had been selected in the year 1986. Because of the litigation, they have been deprived of their appointments as Taxation Inspectors. The Authorities are now directed to give the appointments to the writ Petitioners within a period of one month as Taxation Inspectors.
