Holding

The selection of Canal Patwaris by the Government’s ad‑hoc Selection Committee, without involving the Subordinate Service Selection Board as mandated by the 1970 notification and the 1955 Rules, was ultra vires and illegal; appointments must be made by the SSB following the prescribed procedure.

Summary

The case concerned the recruitment of Canal Patwaris (Class III posts) in Haryana's Irrigation Department. The 1955 Patwaris Rules were amended by a 1970 notification requiring selection through the Subordinate Service Selection Board (SSSB). The Government, however, conducted examinations under the 1955 Rules, then excluded the posts from the SSB's purview by notification and appointed a special Selection Committee to interview and select candidates, awarding marks in a lump‑sum manner. Unsuccessful candidates challenged the selection, and the High Court held the Committee’s constitution and selection ultra vires. The Supreme Court affirmed that after the 1970 notification the only competent authority for recruitment is the SSB, and the Government’s ad‑hoc procedure violated the statutory scheme, directing the SSB to conduct interviews and appointments in accordance with the rules. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the writ petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Government’s constitution of a Selection Committee and its method of selecting Canal Patwaris bypassed the statutory authority of the Subordinate Service Selection Board under the 1970 notification and 1955 Rules.
Whether the selection process adopted by the Committee, including lump‑sum marking and exclusion of employment‑exchange procedures, was legal.
Whether the High Court’s order setting aside the appointments was correct in law.

Legislation cited

Employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959

Subjects

Service LawRecruitmentSelection CommitteeSubordinate Service Selection BoardUltra ViresAppointmentReservationEmployment ExchangeProcedural Fairness

Judgment

RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. A
v.
SHAKTI RAJ AND ORS. ETC.

FEBRUARY 11, 1997.

[K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND B
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

Service Law :

Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch). Patwaris State C
Service Class III Rules, 1955 (as modified by Government of Haryana
Notification dated 28,1.1970) :

Canal Patwaris-lrrigation Department of State of Haryana-Selec-
tion-Paragraph 6 of 1970 Notification provided that for appointment to all D
Class III posts, Subordinate Services Selection Board would be con-
sulted-Examinations conducted between 25th and 28th April, 1992 under
1955 Rules-After declaration of results, Government constituted a Selection
Committee which selected the appellants-{]nsuccessful candidates chal-
lenged the selection procedure by filing a writ petition before High Court which·
held constitution of Selection Committee and selection of appellants as ultra- E
vires the power of Government-Held, after 1970 Notification came to be
issued to the extent of meth<>d and manner of selection of Canal Patwaris,
the 1955 Rules stood modified and the only competent authority to select the
candidates in SSSB-Govemment committed glaring illegalities in the proce-
dure to get the candidates for examination under the 1955 Rules, so also in F
the method of selection and exercise of the power in taking the Selection of
Canal Patwaris out from the purview of the Board-Directions given to
Government and the Board to fallow the selection procedure and make
selections accordingly.

Excise Superintendent v. KB.N. Visweshwara Rao, [1996] 6 SCALE G
676, relied oli.

Madan Lal v. State of J & K, [1995] 3 SCC 486, Held inapplicable.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 923 of
1997. H
1159
1160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 6816 of 1995.

Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, K. Madhava Reddy,
Jitendra Sharma, Ranjit Kumar, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ramesh Singh, Mrs.
Rakhi Ray, 'Uma Datta, R.C. Verma, B.S. Chahar, Jasbir Malik, Prem
B Malhotra, K.S. Chauhan, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Rajeshwar Singh, Ashok K.
Mahajan, M. Qamaruddin, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, Gian Singh, S.C. Patel,
Pawan Kumar Bahl, M.M. Kashyap, Balraj Dewan, R.S. Kataria, R.K.
Maheshwari, R.K. Khanna, D.B. Vohra, Ranbir Yadav and N.S. Bisht for
the appearing parties.
c N.P.S. Panwar and S.N. Bhat for Intervenor.

In-person for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

D Civil Appeal No. 923 of 1997, with Civil Appeal No. 924,..!J.25-984 of 1997
and In SLP (C) Nos. 8221-82 And 10357/96

Mr. R.C. Verma, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw these
petitions. They are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

E !11 CA Nos. 923-984197
@ SLP (C) Nos. 4151, 4694 and 4702-4761/96:

Application for intervention is allowed.
F Leave granted. We have heard learned counsi;l on both sides.

These appeals by special leave arise from Division Bench judgment
of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, made on December 20, 1995 in CWP
No. 6816 of 1995 and batch.
G The admitted facts are that the posts of Canal Patwaris in the
Irrigation Department of the State of Haryana are class III posts in the
State service. Earlier, they were called Irrigation Booking Clerks and came
to be designated as Patwaris in 1981. Prior to the formation of the State of
Haryana on November 1, 1966, the recruitment of Canal Patwaris was
H governed by the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch)
RAJ KR. v. SHAKTI RAJ 1161

Patwaris State Service, Class Ill Rules, 1955 (for short, '1955 Rules') issued A
under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 2(i) defines
"Apprentice Patwari" to mean a person who after passing the patwari
,. examination is posted as a reserve against 7% of the limiting ·scale of
Patwaris sanctioned for a circle. Rule 4 prescribes conditions for ap-
pointment to the service. Rule 5 postulates that no person shall be
B
accepted as a candidate Patwari who is less than 18 years or more than
22 years (now 25 years) of age at the time of acceptance (proviso being
not relevant, omitted). Rule 6 envisages that "No person shall be ap-
pointed to the Service unless he has passed the Matriculation or School
Leaving Certificate Examination of a recognised university or its
equivalent, but preference shall be given to candidates possessing higher c
qualifications" (proviso is not relevant, hence omitted). Rule 8 postu-
lates that "All appointments to posts in the service shall be made by the
Divisional Officers". Rule 10( a) envisages that "Appointments to the
Service shall be made by direct appointment". Rule lO(b) provides that:
D
"(b) The Divisional Officer shall keep a register of accepted
candidates for training purposes. Not more than twice the number
of candidates required to fill the vacancies for the ensuing year .
shall be brought on to the list of accepted candidates and trained
and sent up for the examination. No candidate shall be accepted
for enrolment in the Divisional Candidate's List unless he complies E
wit~ the conditions mentioned in Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of these
Rules."

Rule 12 provides thus :
F
"12(a) All candidates, who pass the examination, shall be brought
on to the circle register of passed candidates in serial order of
passing the examinatio!l. When a permanent vacancy occurs in any
Division the next passed candidate shall be posted from the circle
register irrespective of whether he is serving in a leave or tem-
porary vacancy in another Division of the Circle. The order of G
appointment shall be issued by the Divisional Officer. The name
of a passed candidate' who reaches the age of 25 years without
having been employed temporarily as a patwari shall be struck off
I .
the list. Provided that this maximum age limit shall be relaxed in
the case of members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and H
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.
A other Backward Classes to the extent of such period as may be
prescribed by Government in this behalf from time to time, in
respect of entry of such candidates into service under Govern-
ment and the names of such candidates shall be retained on the
list upto that age, it is duty of the Superintending Engineer to
examine the Circle register of passed candidates early in January
B
each year, in order to see that sufficient candidates are borne
on the register to fill all vacancies that are likely to occur during
the 'Jlext two years, and to ensure, as far as possible, that all
candidates shall ordinarily obtain permanent employment
before they reach the maximum age prescribed under this Rule.
c A selection board consisting of all the Divisional Officers of the
Circle shall sit before June 1st every year to select the can-
. didates for training for the year in accordance with rule 11.

(b) No person may be brought on to the Circle register of passed
candidates unless he has passed the patwar examination."
D
Rule 14 provides that "the seniority of members of the Service shall
be determined in accordance with Circle register of passed candidates in
serial order of passing the patwar examination. If the position secured in
the examination is the same, in the case of two or more persons, their
E seniority shall be determined by age, a younger member being junior to
an older member. Rule 15 adumbrates as under :

"(a) Members of the Service shall be entitled to pay scales as are
given in Appendix A provided that the scales of pay may be altered
F by the Government as and when necessary, They shall also be
entitled to bonus, they earn in each crop,· in accordance with
Chapter 12 of the Revenue Manual.

(b) Apprentice Patwaris shall receive Rs. 32 per mensum each
when not employed in leave ·or regular vacancies."
G
It is to be noted that pursuant to a query raised by the Chief Engineer
(Admn.), Irrigation Works, Punjab, by a letter dated February 5, 1962, the
then Punjab Government had clarified that the recruitment to the posts of
Canal Patwaris is to be made through the Subordinate Service Selection
H Board (for short, 'SSSB').
RAJ KR. V. SHAKTI RAJ 1163

After formation of the State of Haryana on January 28, 1970, the A
Governor, exercising the power under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution and in modification of all other Rules in this behalf, con-
stituted the SSSB for recruitment and appointment to Class III and IV
posts. Para 6 of the notification issued in this behalf postulates the
functions of the Board. Clause (a) thereof adumbrates that for appoint- B
ments to Class-III posts under the State Government, except appoint-
ment of officers and employee of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
provided for in Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Board shall
be consulted. Clause ( d) provides that the Board is also required to be
consulted in the matter of methods of recruitment and the principles to
be followed in making appointments to Class III and Class IV posts,
c
under the State Government. The proviso thereto gives power to the
State Government thus :

."Provided that it shall not be necessary to consult the Board in D
respect of ·such posts and matters as the State Government may,
by notification, specify."

It would, thus, be seen that in the matter of recruitment to Class
III and Class IV posts 1970 Rules have modified the 1955 Rules by
• providing for recruitment in consultation with the Board instead of the E
recruitment by the Canal Divisional Officer adumbrated in 1955 Rules.
Unless there is exercise of the power under proviso to Rule 6 excluding,
by a notification issued in that behalf, the requirement of consulting the
Board, the recruitment to 7% posts of the Canal Patwaris in the Irriga-
... tion Department .is required to be made through SSSB. A bird's eye F
examination of the 1955 Rules a;nd 1970 notification, both statutory
Rules, reveals that the former, to fit into the frame work of 1970
notification need suitable amendments in particular, in the matter of the
source and met~i;id of recruitment, seniority and all related issues.
However, it is the duty of the Court to give harmonious interpretation G
to the Rules so as to make them co-exist and work as a continuous
whole. It is unfortunate to notice from the record that the Government
was adopting its own procedure convenient to them, namely, in many a
occasion, it appointed Patwaris on circle basis under the 1955 Rules and
in some instances, like the selection made in the year 1974, the selection
came to be made through SSSB. In other words, the selection and the H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A appointments to the posts of Canal Patwaris under 1955 Rules is not in
accordance with the law. However, we need not declare all th~ selections
and appointments as illegal. It is not in dispute that for the;..impugned
selection made in the year 1992, the examinations came to be conducted
between April 25 and April 28, 1992 under 1955 Rules. It is also undisputed
B that common examinations conducted on different dates in four centres
was on uniform pattern of examinations as Statewide one. The results
thereof were declared in 1993. Subsequent thereto, the Government have
excluded from the purview of the Board by four notifications, a total of 427
posts of Patwaris. Subsequently, the Government has constituted a Selec-
tion Committee for selection of Canal Patwaris, consisting of Chief En-
C gineering, YWS Unit as Chairman, Chief Engineer BWS Unit as Member, ·
General Manager (0) Irrigation Department as Member Secretary,
Deputy Collector, BWS/C Kaithal as Member and Executive Engineer
Canal Hissar as Co-opted member. They interviewed the candidates and
came to select the appellants in these cases. The unofficial respondents,
D who were unsuccessful in the interview, filed the writ petitions in the High
Court. The High Court has held that the constitution of Selection Commit-
tee and the selection of the appellants is ultra vires the power of the·
Government. The reason in support thereof is that since 1955 }lules
occupy the.c field for selection, administrative instructions cannot be
issued to constitute Selection Committee. Therefore, it set aside the
E selection and appointment of all the appellants as Canal Patwaris.
Instead, it directed to make appointment in terms of 1955 'Rules, those
who appeared in the examinations conducted between April 25 and
April 28, 1992 and remained successful and fulfilled other qualifications
in that behalf. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
F
Shri ·K. Madhava Reddy, learned senior counsel and Shri Ranjit
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contend that 1955
Rules have tb give place to 1970 notification which envisages selection by
the SSSB. By exercise of power under proviso to para 6 of the 1970
notification, the Govermilent excluded the posts from the purview of the
G SSSB. Consequently, the Government came to appoint the Selection Com-
mittee for selection of the candidates. The Committee has prescribed ·~
various guidelines for selection of the candidates. Even assuming that 1955
Rules would occupy the field, in view of the fact that the provisions of the .,..__.
Empfoyment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act, 1959
H having been in force, Rule 12 of the 1955 Rules had become inoperative.

\
RN KR. v. SHAKTI RN 1165

As a consequence, the maintenance of circle-wise . register by the A
authorities under 1955 Rules became illegal. The Committee had duly
interviewed the successful candidates in the written examination and
selected them on merit. The unofficial respondents having appeared before
the Selection Committee and taken a chance of selection, it would not be
open to them to contend that the selection of the appellants is invalid in
B
law. It is also contended that the appellants have been working since the

-
dates of their appointment and, therefore, they cannot be denied of their
appointments duly made by the Government.

Shri Jitender Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing for the un-
official respondents and Shri Qamaruddin, learned counsel appearing for C
some of them, contend that the method of selection adopted by the
Committee is without jurisdiction. Having excluded ' .the posts from the
purview of 1970 Rules, the operation of 1955 Rules came into vogue. As a
consequence, the only power the Government have is to follow the method
prescribed in 1955 Rules and Rule 12 made thereunder. The Government, D
therefore, was devoid of power to constitute a Committee for selection of
.the candidates. Since the statutory Rules are in operation, the executive
instructions cannot be issued to supplant the statutory Rules. Even on
merits also, they pointed out that the High Court has gone into the select
list, method of awarding the marks which would show that even their own
procedure prescribed for awarding the marks itemwise was not adhered E
to; instead lumpsum marks came to be awarded to the candidates which
method is arbitrary. It is accordingly contended that unofficial respondents
having secured higher marks than the appellants cannot be deprived of
their legitimate expectation to seek appointment in accordance with the
Rules. F

Having regard to the respective contentions, the question is : whether
the view taken by the High Court in quashing the selection and appoint-
ment of the appellants is correct in law? It is rather unfortunate that the
State having filed the appeals bas chosen to withdraw the same at the last G
minute and sought permission therefor. We have no option but to permit
them to withdraw as they do not seek to contest the matter on merits.
Rather we have availed of the assistance rendered by the learned counsel
on either side. From the facts, it is seen that 1955 Rules operate as regards
the qualifications and other conditions of eligibility prescribed thereunder.
They .are statutory Rules. Equally, 1970 notification has also statutory H
··r-
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1997) 1 S.C.R.
A character. They are in modification of the extant 1955 Rules. In other
words; the source of manner and method of recruitment for selection of -t '
Canal Patwaris stood modified by 1970 notification. As a consequence, the
direct recruitment of Canal Patwaris shall be made only thr.o.1Jgh SSSB.
Unfortunately, the Government chose to select candidates al ,their con-
B venience, sometimes under 1955 Rules and sometimes under 197{) notifica-
tion, according to their convenience. But in this case, they have dispensed
with both and instead constituted a Committee for selection of the can-
didates having excluded from the purview of 1970 notification, that too
after written examinations were conducted under 1955 Rules. The ques-
tion, therefore, is : whether the method of selection adopted by the
C Selection Committee is correct in law? It is seen that the procedures
adopted both under 1955 Rules and 1970 notification are not correct. After
1970 notification came to be issued, to the extent of the method and
manner of selection of Canal Patwaris, 1955 Rules stood modified and the
only competent authority to select the candidates is SSSB. The Board is
D required to advertise the vacancies and select the candidates but that was
not done. On tht: other hand, after the examinations were conducted and
results declared under 1955 Rules, the posts were taken out from the
purview of the Board. The Board did not even conduct the examinations.
The power of the Governor under proviso to Article 309 is constituent
power and legislative in character subject to an Act of legislation. He need
, E not have prior consultation with the Board for laying the principles of
t
recruitment or withdrawal of the posts from the purview, of the Board. The
Committee constituted by the Government had ·;..ot conducted written
examinations. It called for interview all those who were declared successful
in Patwari examination. The selection Committee had evolved a criteria of
F awarding marks to select the candidates. For academic qualifications, they
allocated total marks of 25 to be rationalised to come within the said quota;
for the written examination, maximum of 25; 5 marks were allocated for
sports qualification, for experience, 10 marks; for extra-curricular activities,
5 marks and for viva voce 30 marks totalling to 100 marks. But, unfortunate-
ly, as pointed out by the High Court in the judgment, they have given a
G decent burial and go-by to their own method of awarding the marks to the
candidates and instead awarded marks in lumpsum. The High Court has
pointed out thus :
J
"During the course of arguments, on our direction the respondent-
H State produced the record prepared by the Selection Committee
RAJ KR. v. SHAKTI RAJ 1167
> 7 after interviewing the candidates. No other record has been A
produced in spite of our specific direction. From a bare perusal
of the record produced, it is evident that the Selection Committee
has awarded the marks to every candidate in a lump. ~o record·
has been produced to show that the candidates were awarded
marks on itemwise basis.
B
The prescribed criteria is thus :

"Mark 'C.I.'

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION
Matric 3rd Divn. 20
c
Matric 2nd, Prep. or + 1 21
Matric Ist + SSLC + 2 22
+ 2 1st-BA Part I & II B.A. 23
B.A. 24
~ B.A. 1st or M.A. or D
B.Ed. etc. 25 25

PATWARI EXAMINATION
230 - 240 20
241 - 260 21
E
261 - 280 22
281 - 290 23
291 - 300 24
.. 301- + 525 25

SPORT 5 F
Experience : 10
Extra-curricular 5 20
Viva Vote 30 30

Total Marks 100 100
G
Having prescribed maximum marks for each item, necessarily they
• '1lf" are required to apply the rationale to each of the candidates in accord-
ance with the academic qualification etc. acquired by the candidates.
1955 Rules give preference in the matter of selection to the person
possessing higher academic qualifications. But, unfortunately, the H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C:R.
A Government did not adopt and apply the said rule. Equally, nothing has
been indicated as to the marks awarded on each item. They had cut off the
marks actually secured in the written examination and rationalised them to
come within 25% quota. Though prescription of the marks for those items
•
is perfectly valid and legal, but cutting off the marks actually secured by
B the candidates in the common written examination is arbitrary and unwar-
ranted. It is not the case that examinations were conducted on circle-Wise
basis according to the paper. set by each circle. On the other hand, the
admitted facts are that examinations wen; conducted b!!tween April 25 and
April 28, 1992 at four centres on different date;Jh-I",espect of all the
candidates. The examination papers were of common ~nd'atd and all were
c required to write the same examination. Under those circumstances, the
appropriate procedure should have been to apply the marks as secured by
them in the written examination plus the marks awardable to the respective ...
candidates either on the academic qualifications or on the sports qualifica-
tion or experience qualification or extra-curricular qualification or the·
D marks actually secured in the viva voce and to pool them as total marks
secured by each candidates and the merit list should have been prepared
in the light of the Rules. On the basis of the aggrevte marks secured by
candidates, select list should have been prepared and recommendations
made to enable them to appear in accordance with the prescribed Rules;
E including the rule of reservation applicable to various categories mentioned
in the rules and allotment made to the respective circles as envisaged under
1955 Rules and all other rules issued in that behalf. Unfortunately, this
procedure has not been adopted. On the other hand, the admitted position
is that after the candidates were given training for three months as ~
p prescribed under the 1955 Rules and written examination were conducted,
they were again called for froni the respective employment exchange and
interviews were conducted thereafter.

A Bench of three Judges of this Court in Excise Supe1i11te11de11t v.
KB.N. Visweshwara Rao, [(1996) 6 SCALE 676] had held thus:
G
"It is common knowledge that many a candidates are unable to I
'•
have the names sponsored, thought their names are either
registered or are waiting to be registered in the employment
exchange, with the result that the choice of selection is restricted
H ·to only such of the candidates whose names come to be sponsored
RAJ KR. v. SHAKTI RAJ 1169
by the employment exchange. Under these circumstances, many a A
deserving candidates are deprived of the right to be considered
for appointment to a post under the State, Better View appears to
be that "It should be mandatory for the requisitioning authority/es-
tablishment to intimate the employment exchange, and employ-
ment exchange should sponsor the names of the candidates to the B
requisitioning· Departments for selection strictly according to
seniority and reservation, as per requisition. In addition, the ap-
propriate Department or undertaking or establishment, should call
for the names by publication in the newspapers having wider
circulation and also display on their office notice boards or an-
nounce on radio, television and employment news-bulletins; and C
then consider the cases of all the candidates who have applied. If
that procedure is adopted, fair play would be subserved. The
equality of opportunity in the matter of employment would be
·available to all eligible candidates.''
D
In view of this legal position, the necessary requirement should be
that they should necessarily not only notify but also call the names from
employment exchange; in addition they should give wide publicity in the
media inviting applications from qualified persons for selection. Instead,
they have adopted the procedure under 1955 Rules. They did not call the
names from the employment exchange and conducted the examinations for E
them. After the selection of the candidates, names of selected candidates
were called from the employment exchange. Obviously, the successful

- candidates in the written examinations were asked to approach the employ-
ment exchange of the concerned circle and, accordingly, names came to be
sponsored. The procedure adopted is clearly illegal denying equal oppor- F
· tunity to many a candidate waiting in the register of the concerned employ-
ment exchange. Therefore, the Government hereafter should strictly follow
the procedure by not only calling their names from the employment ex-
change, but also by publishing in the local and-n;tional newspapers and
giving wide publicity in the media as well as getting the written examination G
and the interview conducted by the SSSB; marks should be awarded strictly
according to the procedure.

Yet another circumstance is that the Government had not taken out
the posts from the purview of the Board, but after the examinations were H
. '
t
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 1 S.C.R.
A conducted under the 1955 Rules and after the results were announced, it ~
-4.
exercised the power under the proviso to para 6 of 1970 notification and
the posts were taken out from the purview thereof. Thereafter the Selection
Committee was constituted for selection of the candidates. The entire
procedure is also obviously illegal. It is true, as contended by Shri Madhava
B Reddy, that this Court in Madan Lal v. State of J & K, (1995] 3 SCC486,
and other decisions referred therein had held that a candidate having taken
a chance to appear in an interview and having remained unsuccessful,
I
cannot turn round and challenge either the constitution of the Selection ...
Board or the ·method of selection as being illegal; he is estopped to
question the correctness of the selection. But in his case, the Government
c have committed glaring illegalities in the procedure to get the candidates
for examination under 1955 Rules, so also in the method of selection and
exercise of the power in taking out from the purview of the Board and also
conduct of the selection in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, the
principle of estoppel by conduct or acquiescence has no application to the
D facts in- this case. Thus, we consider that the procedure offered under the J.

1955 Rules adopted by the Government or the Committee as well as the
action taken by the Government are not correct in law.

The question then is : what would be the correct procedure under
E the law? Unfortunately, no outside candidate has questioned the selection
of the candidates in the interview. In the light of what we have stated in
the facts and circumstances, the appropriate and better course would be
that SSSB should call the names of all the candidates who were successful
in the written examinations conducted between April 25 and April 28, 1992.

F
Interview the candidates and select them in accordance with law laid down
above. Since the appellants came to be appointed by virtue of the selection
-.-
-
made, they would continue in service till the proper selection is made and
the candidates are appointed in accordance with the Rules.

The Government is directed to send within three weeks from the date
G of the receipt of the order, all the names of the candidates who became
successful in the Patwari examination conducted between April· 25 and
April 28, 1992 to the SSSB as per the results declared. The Board is
-directed to call, for interview, all the candidates within four weeks fro!Il
the date of the receipt of the record from the Government. The Board is
H further directed to interview all those candidates according to he proce-
RAJ KR. v. SHAKTI RAJ 1171
dure, consider their cases in accordance with the above law laid down and A
ten select the candidates as per merit list duly applying the rule of reser-
vation. The Board would recommend to the appointing authority and
appointments would be made strictly in accordance with the merit list
prepared after following the rule of reservation. If any of the candidates
would, at the relevant time, become barred by age, necessary relaxation of B
age would be given to them and appointment made accordingly.

The appeals are accordingly allowed and the writ petitions filed in
the High Court stand dismissed of. No costs.

R.P. Appeals allowed and
Petitions disposed of.