There is numberdispute about these general principles.
Ultimately, this Court disposed of the appeals filed by respondents 4 to 16 Civil Appeal Nos.6976 6977 of 1999 by order dated 6.12.1999, reversing the decision of the High Court and dismissing the writ petition before the High Court.
The said respondents gave several representations dated 19.7.2000, 5.9.2000, 4.10.2000, 10.10.2000 and 11.10.2000 for fixing their seniority with reference to the merit list published by the Commission on 1.10.1993.
The advertisement made it clear that the number of posts advertised was subject to variations to any extent.
The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab Haryana High Court on 4.4.1994 and the recommendations in excess of the 18 vacancies were quashed on the ground that the Commission companyld number make recommendations beyond the number of posts advertised.
On 1.6.1993, the State Education Department made a fresh requisition to the Commission in regard to additional vacancies, thereby increasing the posts to be filled to 37.
They pointed out that but for the litigation, they would have been appointed along with the other 16 candidates on 2.6.1994 and as their selection was in regard to vacancies which were numberified in January, 1992, they should be given seniority above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies.
A Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge on 18.1.1999.
The State Government companysidered and accepted their request and fixed their position immediately after the 16 candidates who were appointed from the same merit list on 2.6.1994.
The said decision is challenged by the appellants reiterating the companytentions urged before the High Court.
However, before the State Government companyld make appointment in terms of the said list, a number selected candidate filed WP No.12700 of 1993 companytending that only 18 posts were numberified and the Commission companyld number make recommendations for selection of 30 candidates.
Considering a similar situation, this Court, in Surender Narayan vs. State of Bihar 1998 5 SCC 246, held that candidates who were selected against earlier vacancies but who companyld number be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies.
emphasis supplied In pursuance of the said judgment, the State Government by order dated 26.5.2000 appointed respondents 4 to 16 as Principals.
Respondents 4 to 16 who were denied appointments, though their names were in the selected merit list of 30 candidates, challenged the order dated 18.1.1999 of the Division Bench.
The Haryana Public Service Commission the third respondent Commission for short issued an advertisement in January, 1992 inviting applications for 18 posts of temporary Principals in higher secondary schools.
This Court by interim order dated 10.5.1999 directed that 12 vacancies may number be filled until final disposal by this Court.
The High Court rejected the writ petition by the impugned order dated 5.10.2004.
In the meanwhile, in view of the order of the learned Single Judge, the State Government appointed only 16 candidates from the list of 30 by order dated 2.6.1994.
The Commission declared the merit list of 30 selected candidates on 30.9.1993 published on 1.10.1993 , which included Respondents 4 to 16.
The State Government appointed only 16 as against 18 permitted by the High Court, number for want of vacancies but on account of some technical difficulty in appointing other two candidates.
It held that appointments of respondents 4 to 16 were in regard to an advertisement issued prior to the advertisement, in response to which the appellants were selected that the actual appointment of respondents 4 to 16 was delayed number for want of any vacancies but on account of litigation which were beyond their companytrol that but for the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge on 4.4.1994 declaring selections beyond 18 to be illegal, they would have been appointed on 2.6.1994 when the other candidates from the said merit list were appointed and that therefore, the State Government was justified in giving respondents 4 to 16 benefit of numberional seniority with effect from 2.6.1994 and placing them above the appellants who were appointed against subsequent vacancies advertisements.
Respondents 4 to 16 were applicants against the said advertisement and underwent the process of selection.
Feeling aggrieved the appellants filed CWP No.18727 of 2003 before the Punjab Haryana High Court.
But the question here is in regard to seniority of the respondents 4 to 16 selected on 1.10.1993 against certain vacancies of 1992 93 who were number appointed due to litigation, and those who were selected against subsequent vacancies.
All others from the same merit list declared on 1.10.1993 were appointed on 2.6.1994.
The appellants, appointed as Principals between 1995 and 2000 either by direct recruitment or promotion are aggrieved by the seniority given to respondents 4 to 16 appointed as Principals on 26.5.2000, with retrospective effect from 2.6.1994.
V. Raveendran J. This appeal by special leave is preferred by the writ petitioners in CWP No.18727 of 2003 being aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition by the Punjab Haryana High Court by judgment dated 5.10.2004.
