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, Jatinder Kumar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, , Mani Subrat Jain and Others Vs.
State of Haryana and Others, , and C.W.P. No. 4000 of 1986 Dharam Pal and Ors. v. The State of Haryana C.W.P. No. 4000 of 1986 decided
on 27th November, 1987 decided by this Court on 27th November, 1987. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that mere selection, does
not confer, any right for appointment. But if posts are available and the selection has been, made for those posts and even fresh advertisement is
issued for the same very posts and some persons are appointed against those posts on, ad-hoc basis'' to man those posts, then in such
circumstances the State Government must give legal justification for not appointing, the candidates who have been duly selected. The learned
Single Judge while repelling this point of the State Government had rightly relied on the Supreme Court case reported Neelima Shangla v. State of
Haryana 1986 (3) S.L.R. 389 wherein it has been held that the State cannot deny appointment to a candidate who has been selected by a
competent Authority without any legal justification. The Court can go into the legal justification which may be put forth by the State. In the present
case no such justification is forthcoming at all. On the other hand, the State Government having already stated in Joginder Singh''s case (supra) that
the selected candidates shall be appointed; the fresh advertisement for these posts having been issued and members of ministerial staff having been
appointed on ad-hoc basis to man these posts, would go to show that there was no legal justification whatsoever in not appointing the writ
Petitioners who had been duly selected. The inaction of the State Government in not giving appointment to the selected candidates, under these
circumstances, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The only justification which the Learned Counsel for the
Appellants had orally given during the course of arguments is that they had given an undertaking in C.W.P. No. 2839 of 1986 that fresh
appointments after advertisement shall be made against these posts. It may be mentioned here that apart from the fact that there is no such
undertaking by the State Government and that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous at the instance of the writ Petitioners in that case, as is
evident from the order dated 10th March, 1987 quoted above. Such an undertaking, even if it is there, being after the selection of the candidates
cannot give legal justification to the State Government for not appointing the writ Petitioners who were duly selected. Otherwise, we have not been
persuaded at all to lake a different view in this matter which has been taken by the learned Single Judge.
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.