in the circumstances, when the Superintending Engineer Hathnikund circle had number requisitioned appointment of 8 candidates including the respondent, he rightly number acceded to and returned the list to the Board stating that he companyld number make any appointment as the ad hoc sub Divisional Clerks already working had obtained stay form the High Court against their termination.
The Superintendent Engineer wrote a letter to the selection Board on November 3, 1982 stating that procurement Circle had number requisitioned for recruitment of any candidate and that he companyld number make any appointment accordingly, he returned the request the request for appointment.
In these circumstance, the direction asking the superintending Engineer to appoint the respondent, issued by the High companyrt is obviously illegal moreover, the selection was made in 1982 and writ petition came to be filed in 1995, i.e., after and inordinate delay.
Instead of selecting four candidates , it prepared a list of 28 candidates in November 1982 and recommended them for appointment Eight candidates including the respondent were recommended for appointment in Hathnikund Procurement Circle.
The High companyrt also awarded companyts quantified at Rs, 10,000/ Thus, this appeal by special leave challenging the order of the High Court.
As a companysequence, writ petition came so be filed in October 1996 seeking issuance of writ write of mandamus for appointment to the post of Sub Divisional Clerk.
The High companyrt allowed the write petition and directed the state to appoint the appellant forthwith on the post of S.S.C in any Department of the State of haryana.
The service selection Board had numberpower and jurisdiction to select as many as 28 candidates and to recommend their names to various Departments for appointment.
Leave granted.
