Holding

A select list is valid only for one year; the SSB’s preparation of an excessively large list and random appointment order constitutes gross illegality, and the earlier mandamus cannot be nullified by the Full Bench.

Summary

The Haryana Service Selection Board (SSB) received requisitions for 662 clerk vacancies but prepared a selection list of 5,373 candidates on 15‑Oct‑1989 and recommended 1,692 names in a random order, excluding many higher‑merit candidates. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari’s case directed that the list would not lapse and all future appointments should be made from it, without disturbing existing appointments. A Full Bench of the same High Court later held that a select list is valid only for one year, that the SSB’s excess list and random appointments were illegal, and that the earlier mandamus could not be set aside. The appellants challenged this Full Bench judgment before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that a select list remains valid for only one year, affirmed the illegality of the SSB’s oversized list, declined to annul appointments already made, and limited future appointments to vacancies existing before the 1995 advertisement and strictly on merit. The Court modified the Full Bench directions and disposed of the appeals.

Issues considered

The Full Bench’s authority to set aside the mandamus/directions issued in Sudesh Kumari’s case without a higher‑court appeal.
Whether a select list remains valid beyond its statutory one‑year period.
The legality of the Service Selection Board preparing a list of 5,373 candidates for only 662 vacancies and appointing them out of merit order.
The appropriate relief for candidates not appointed and for those already appointed from the oversized list.
The propriety of the State’s inaction in not challenging the Sudesh Kumari judgment.

Subjects

Service Selection BoardRecruitmentSelect list validityMandamusAdministrative lawMerit listPublic policyAppointment

Judgment

A ROSHNI DEVI AND ORS. ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 18, 1998

B
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

Se1vice Law :

Appointment-Se1vice Selection Board of H wyana-S electing 5373
C candidates as against 662 vacancie~Names from select list not sent in order
of melit for appointment-Pe1~·ons higher in me1it than those appointed filed
wlit petition-High Cowt directing to appoi11t all such persons and that list
would not lapse till last such candidate is appointed-In another w1it petition
the select list challenged-A Full Bench of High Cowt held that directions
issued in earlier judgment were not in con/onnity with law-Held, a select list
D remains valid for one yem~Board committed gross e1mr in selecting much
more candidates tha11 those required and in not recomme11ding 11ames for
appointment in order of nwit-Directions modifying the judgment of Full
f3ench issued.

E The Service Selection Board of the State of Haryana received requi-
sitions for 662 posts of Clerks from different departments of the State ",
Government for the year 1987. The Board conducted written test and
prepared a selection list of 5373 candidates on 15.10.1989 and recom-
mended 1692 candidates to different departments. It was stated that
F recommendations were made at random and not in order of merit; and the
persons so recommended included even a candidate shown at serial No.
4645 of the merit list. A writ petition was filed in the High Court. The said
writ petition was allowed holding that all persons higher in merit and not
appointed were entitled to appointment. It was directed that without
-
disturbing the appointments already made, all future appointments would
G be made from the list dated 15.10.1989 and the list would not lapse.

Some of the unsuccessful candidates filed another writ petition
before the High Court challenging the validity of the selection list dated
15.10.1989, inter alia, on the ground that the Board could not prepare a list
H of 5373 candidates against 662 vacancies as informed by various depart-
714
ROSHNI DEVI v. STATE 715

ments, and that the select list would lapse after expiry of one year. This A
petition came to be heard by a Full Bench of the High Court which held
that the Board could not' made selection in excess of requisition made by
different departments subject to the provision of waiting list; the directions ·
given in Sudesh Kumari's case that the selection list dated 15.10.1989 would
not lapse were not inconformity with law; that the said list was valid for B
one year and vacancies arising from 15.10.1990 onwards would be re-ad-
vertised. However, the High Court further directed that the Government
would consider the claim of the candidates whose name appeared up to
serial No. 662 in the merit list but did not get appointment. The appellants
challenged this judgment in the present appeal.
c
It was contended for the appellants that the Full Bench could not
have annulled the mandamus issued in Sudesh Kumari's case, as a writ of
mandamus could be nullified only by preferring an appeal to a higher
forum and by getting such judgment reversed and as such the Full Bench
had no jurisdiction to give the impugned directions. For the respondent D
State it was contended that the directions given in Sudesh Kumari's case,
were against public policy and implementation thereof would adversely
affect the employment opportunity of future generations for years to come.

Disposing of the appeal, this Court E

HELD : 1.1. A select list remains valid for one year and, therefore,
after expiry of the said period normally a court would not be justified in
issuing direction to give appointments from the list whose time has already
expired unless it is established that notwithstanding existence of vacancies
F
the appointing authority malafidely did not make appointment from the
list. [720-F-G]

1.2. The Service Selection Board committed gross illegality in select-
ing and preparing a list of 5373 candidates against the requisition for 662
posts of clerk received by it. The Board also erred in sending the names G
of persons from the list not in order of their merit but at random, as a
result of which persons with higher merit stood excluded whereas persons
securing lower merit got appointed. This seriously prejudices the interest
of future candidates and also jeopardised the administration to a gre::t
extent. [720-G-H] H
716 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A 1.3. The inaction on the part of the State 6owernment in not assailing
the judgment of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari's case and now coming
up before this Court making submissions that the judgment is practically
incapable of being implemented is not worthy of approval. [722-D-E]

2. Notwithstanding the judgment in Sudesh Kumari's case, a fresh
B list has been prepared by the Service Selection Board and parties have
claimed their rights on the basis of inclusion of their names in the said
list. However, bearing in mind all the relevant facts and circumstances and
the equity in favour of those who have already been appointed from out of
the list prepared on 15.10.1989 and have served for more than 9 years, the
C following directions are issued in substitution of the directions made by
the High Court in the impugned judgment: [721-D-F]

(i) The practice of selecting and preparing an unusual large list
compared to the vacancy position is depricated and the State Government
should either amend the Recruitment Rules in that respect and till then
D should issue positive administrative instructions to the Selection Board to
select only some persons in excess than the requisition for which the Board
is going to select people. [722-C-D]

(ii) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared on
15.10.1989 will not be annulled. [721-G]
E
(iii) The candidates occupying higher position than the last person
who is stated to have been appointed being at serial No. 4645 of merit list
dated 15.10.1989 would be considered for appointment to the post of clerk
if there exists any vacancy and appointments would be made strictly on
the basis of their merit position. [721-H]
F
(iv) The vacancy in this context would mean the vacancies which were
available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertisement issued for
selecting persons for the year 1995..___ It is to be made clear that if no
vacancies exist on the aforesaid date then no further appointment would
-
G be made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 notwithstanding the
direction of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari's case. [722-A & B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4900 of
1998 Etc. Etc.

H From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.94 of the Punjab &
ROSHNI DEVI v. STATE [ G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 717

Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 174of1992. A
K.T.S. Tulsi, S.C. Mohanta and R. Venkataramani, (Ajay Siwach) for
Prem. Malhotra, (Surya Kant) (NP), S.C. Patel, Mahabir Singh, S.R.
Sharma, Arvind Kumar, C.S. Ashri, C.N. Sree Kumar and Rao Ranjit for
the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.B. PATIANAIK, J. Application for permission to file Special
Leave Petition is granted.

Delay condoned in Special Leave Petition No. 14660 of 1995. C
Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions .
•
In all these cases the legality of the Full Bench judgment dated 13th
July, 1994, passed by a Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court and the
directions given thereunder are under challenge. These cases depict a D
sordid state of affair in the State of Haryana in relation to recruitment to
the post of Clerks and the State all along has been a mute spectator. As it
appears from the records and the different documents appended thereto
in the year 1987 there existed some vacancies in the post of Clerks in the
State of Haryana and the impugned judgment indicates that the service
Selection Board had received requisitions from different departments of E
the Government for a total number of 662 posts. The advertisement which
had been issued inviting applications from the candidates, however, did not
indicate the number of vacancies. The Service Selection Board conducted
the written test and thereafter selected 5373 candidates and prepared a list
of those candidates on 15.10.1989. In accordance with the prescribed F
procedure from out of the said list the Selection Board recommended the
names of 1692 candidates to different departments; but while making such
recommendation the candidates were not sent in accordance with their
merits but at random. After appointment of these 1692 candidates recom-
mended by the Service Selection Board when persons occupying higher
position in the merit list did not receive any letter of appointment they G
approached the High Court in a Writ Petition which was registered as
C.W.P. No. 8187 of 1990 (Sudesh Kumari v. State Of Haryana). The
aforesaid Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court am;l it was directed
that without disturbing the appointments already made, all future appoint-
ments shall be made from the same list and the selection list which was H
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A prepared by the Service Selection Board on 15th October, 1989 would not
lapse. This direction the High Court gave irrespective of instructions to the
contrary had been issued by the State of Haryana keeping the life of a
Select List alive for one year. The High Court also came to the conclusion
that all persons who are higher in merit as compared to the last person
B who might have been appointed as a clerk are entitled to be appointed. In ·~ -
course of hearing we had been informed that the last person who had been
appointed from the list prepared on 15th October, 1989 was serial no. 4645.
The State did not challenge the aforesaid decision of the High Court in
Sudesh Kumari's case and, therefore, right accrued in favour of the remain-
ing persons from the list prepared on 15th October, 1989 who had not been
C appointed and the list continued to remain valid. This judgment of the High
Court in Sudesh Kumari's case was later on followed in few other cases of
the said Punjab and Haryana High Court. Some unsuccessful candidates
approached the High Court challenging the validity of the list itself which
was prepared by the Service Selection Board on 15th October, 1989 on
D serveral grounds including the ground that as against the requisition of the
different departments for 662 posts of clerk the Selection Board could not
have selected and prepared a list of 5373 candidates as well as on the
ground that the Select List lapses after expiry of one year. When this Writ
Petition was placed before a Division Bench and they were confronted with
the earlier decision of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari's case they thought
E it appropriate to refer the matter to a Full Bench and the Full Bench after
considering all the points raised delivered the judgment on July 13, 1994. '·
The conclusions of the Full Bench and the directions given are extracted
hereunder:-

(i) The Selection Board cannot make the selection in excess of
F . the number of posts for which a requisition has been placed
before it. The waiting list prepared by the Board has to be
confined to the number prescribed by the Government.

(ii) The selected candidates do not have any indefeasible right to
G be appointed to the posts for which they have been selected.

(iii) The directions given by the Bench in Sudesh Kumari's case
particularly to the effect that the selection list prepared on
October 15, 1989 would not lapse are not in conformity with
H law.
ROSHNI DEVI v. STATE [ G.B. PATTANAIK, J.] 719

(iv) The respondent-State of Haryana would examine the cases A
of persons, who were appointed even though they had not
attained the requisite percentage of marks for inclusion in the
merit list and were not within the number of posts for which
a requisition had been sent to the Board. It would pass orders
in accordance with law.
B
(v) The list prepared by the Board on October 15, 1989 was valid
for a period of one year. If a candidate whose name appeared
upto Sr. no. 662 has not been appointed so far the State shall
consider his claim and appoint him. All vacancies arising from
October 15, 1990 onwards shall be readvertised and recruit- C

. . ment against those vacancies shall be made from amongst the
selected candidates.

The effect of the aforesaid direction is not only the accured rights of the
parties pursuant to the judgment of the High Court in Sudesh Kumari's
case got wiped off but also even those who had been appointed and their D
appointment had not been annulled would also be liable to lose their job
if they do not come within the number of posts for which requisition has
been placed before the Selection Board.

The appellants before us challenged the aforesaid judgment and E
direction of the Full Bench.

Mr. Mahavir Singh, the learned counsel and all other learned coun-
sel, appearing for the appellants in respective appeals, contended before
us that the mandamus issued by the High Court in Sudesh Kummi's case
cannot be annulled by a subsequent Full Bench judgment though the Full F
1
-; Bench may be competent to decide the questions of law earlier and in this
I._
view of the matter the directions given in the impugned judgment to the
effect that the list prepared by the Selection Board in excess of the number
of requisition which the Board has received cannot be held to be valid and
operative and persons already appointed in excess of the said number are G
liable to evict their offices after the State Govt. considers their cases are
without jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel a writ in the nature
of mandamus issued by the High Court in a case can be nullified only by
preferring an appeal to a higher forum and get the judgment reversed, but
that course not having been adopted the impugned judgment of the Full H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP.1 S.C.R.

A Bench must be held to be without jurisdiction and at any rate it cannot
nullify the rights accrued to the appellants by virtue of the judgment in
Sudesh Kumari's case.

Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, the learned semor counsel appearing for the
B respondent-State and the Service Selection Board, on the other hand
contended, that though on principle he will not be in a position to refute
the contention advanced, but in the case in hand this Court must consider
the effect of judgment in Sudesh Kumari's case and must bear in mind the
fact that an implementation of the direction of the High Court in Sudesh
Kumari's case would make the future generations for years not to aspire
C for a job in the post of clerk and such direction is against the interest of
the society. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel also brought to our
notice the different administrative circulars issued by the Government
requesting the Service Selection Board ~nly to prepare a list in excess of
the requisition made by 25 persons as well as the circular indicating that a
D list remains valid for a period of one year. We would have ordinarily
persuaded to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
appellants in view of the finality that has been attached to the judgment of
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumari's case, no appeal having
been preferred by the State against the said judgment and would have
permitted the directions given therein to be worked out, but in view of the
E illegality and irregularities perpetrated by the said judgment and in view of
the enormity of the impact which the judgment would have on the future
generation of candidates aspiring for a job in the post of clerk, we would
modify the directions given by the Full Bench and while modifying the said
directions and replacing them with our directions we bear in mind the fact
p that persons who have been appointed from out of the list prepared on
15.10.1989 have already served for more than 9 years. From the relevant
circulars in the form of Administrative directions issued by the Govern-
ment it can be safely said that life of a list remains valid for one year and,
therefore, after expiry of the list normally a Court would not be justified
in issuing direction to give appointments from the list whose life has already
G expired unless it is established that notwithstanding existence of vacancies
the appointing authority malafidely did not make appointment from the list.
We have also no hesitation to come to the conclusion that as against the
requisition for 662 posts of clerk received by the Service Selection Board,
the Board committed gross illegality in selecting and preparing a list of
H 5373 candidates. Further mistake committed by the Board was in sending
ROSHNI DEVI v. STATE [ G.B. PATTANAIK, J.) 721

the names of persons from the list not in order of their merit, but at random A
as a result of which persons with higher merit securing higher position in
the list stood excluded where as persons securing lower merit got ap-
pointed. Having given our anxious consideration to all the facts and cir-
cumstances narrated above and having considered the fact that persons
who may not have been appointed strictly in accordance with law have been
appointed and continued in service for more than 9 years and further the B
fact that the direction in Sudesh Kumari's case not to get the list lapsed
unless and until all persons from the list who are above the last man,
who has already been appointed are appointed which really seriously
prejudice the interest of the further candidates and also jeopardises the
administration to a great extent, we think it appropriate to issue the c
following directions in disposing of these appeals. We may at this stage
notice the fact which was brought before us at the fag end of the hearing
• that in the year 1995 there has been a fresh test by the same Service
Selection Board and again a large number of persons have been in-
cluded in the list and the High Court has given almost a similar direction D
as was one given in Sudesh Kumari's case. We, however, express no opinion
on the legality of the said judgment particularly when we have not ex-
amined the same and the State also intends to challenge the same. The
only purpose for noticing the aforesaid fact was to high light that not-
withstanding the judgment in Sudesh Kumari 's case, there had been a fresh
advertisement and a fresh list has been prepared by the Service Selection E
• Board and parties have claimed their rights on the basis of the inclusion
of their names in the said lists. However, as stated earlier, bearing in mind
all the relevant facts and circumstances and bearing in mind the equity in
favour of those who have already been appointed from out of the list
prepared on 15.10.1989 and have served for more than 9 years we issue the · F
following directions in substitution of the directions made by the High
Court in the impugned judgment:-

(1) The appointments already made from out of the list prepared
on 15-10-1989 will not be annulled.
G

(2) The last person who is stated to have been appointed being
at serial no. 4645, persons occupying higher position than him
could be considered for appointment to the post of clerk if
there exists any vacancy for them. H

_,
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A (3) The vacancy in this context would mean the vacancies which
were available in the State of Haryana prior to the advertise-
ment issued for selecting persons for the said post for the
year 1995. It is to be made clear that if no vacancies exist on
the aforesaid date, then no further appointment would be
made from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989 not- ·¥
B withstanding the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court in Sudesh Kwnali's case.

(4) If vacancies did exist on the date as aforementioned then the
appointments from out of the list prepared on 15.10.1989
could be made strictly on the basis of their merit position in
c the list.

(5) We strongly deprecate the practice of selecting and preparing
an unusual large list compared to the vacancy position and
the State Government should either amend the Recruitment
D Rules in that respect and till then should issue positive ad-
ministrative instructions giving the right to the Selection
Board to select only some persons in excess than the requi-
sition for which the Board is going to select people.

(6) We also do not approve of the inaction on the part of the
E State Govt. in not assailing the judgment of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Sudesh Kumali's case and now coming ~

up before us making submissions that the judgment is prac-
tically incapable of being implemented.

These appeals are disposed of accordingly. But in .the circumstances
F there will be no order as to costs

R.P. Appeal disposed of.