1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

M.A. NOS. 539-569 OF 2022

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5065-5095 OF 2021

HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION ……..APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PRIYANKA AND OTHERS ETC. ……RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NOS. 888 -918 OF 2021

IN

C.A. NOS. 5065-5095 OF 2021

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION(C) NO. 11 OF 2022

IN

C.A.NO. 5090 OF 2021 @ C.A. NOS. 5065-5095 OF 2021

WITH

M.A. DIARY NO. 9711 OF 2022 IN C.A.NO. 5065 OF 2021 @ C.A.

NOS. 5065-5095 OF 2021

WITH

M.A. DIARY NO. 9760 OF 2022 IN C.A. NOS. 5065-5095 OF 2021

O R D E R

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in relation to the

applications seeking clarification/modification of the judgment and order

dated 01.09.2021 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5065-5095 of

2021 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 25184-25214 of 2018

and in relation to Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 888-918 of 2021 and 11 of

2022 as also various other applications for

intervention/direction/clarification, as filed by the cross-section of

2

candidates and the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short ‘the

Commission’).

2. The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the

Commission had issued an advertisement inviting applications for

appointment to the post of Post-Graduate Teachers in different disciplines

for which, the candidate was required to possess the qualification of B.Ed.

The advertisement was issued on 28.06.2015 and the last date for

submission of online application form was 12.10.2015. The requirement

had been that on the date of submission of the application, the candidate

ought to possess B.Ed. degree.

3. The genesis of dispute leading to the present scenario had been in

the fact that some of the candidates had appeared in B.Ed. examination of

the respective universities and though their final result had not been

declared but, on request, they were provided with the

provisional/confidential result of B.Ed. examination by the respective

universities before 12.10.2015. These candidates applied in pursuance of

the advertisement aforesaid. However, at the time of screening, their

candidature was rejected by the Commission only on the ground that the

result of their B.Ed. course had not been finally declared by the respective

universities prior to the cut-off date, i.e., 12.10.2015; and they could not

have applied on the basis of the alleged provisional/confidential result.

4. Such rejection of candidature was challenged by some of these

candidates and the batch of writ petitions led by CWP No. 2701 of 2016

3

was decided by a learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court

on 23.10.2017. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the result

obtained by the writ petitioners could not have been considered invalid, as

the same was obtained not from any other source but from the university

itself. The learned Single Judge disapproved the rejection of candidature

of writ petitioners and issued directions in the following terms: -

“Hence, in view of what has been stated hereinabove, as also as

per the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in CWP no.9533 of

2001, “Ankita Beniwal vs. Haryana Public Service Commission”,

these petitions are allowed and the respondent Commission is

directed to interview the petitioners if they otherwise come within

the zone of selection as per the marks obtained by the last

candidate, in each category in which the petitioners have applied,

provided of course that the result in the case of each petitioner, in

the examination concerned, was disclosed by the respondent

University prior to the cut off date, i.e. 12.10.2015 as per the

corrigendum Annexure P-2.”

5. The Division Bench of the High Court endorsed the views of the

learned Single Judge and found that the candidates who had obtained

provisional/confidential result before the cut-off date were eligible to be

considered in the selection process in question. The Division Bench, inter

alia, observed and held as under: -

“……However, the fact remains that all the petitioners had qualified

the B.Ed. examination and they were eligible to apply for

appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher. Ultimately

marks could be considered at the time of interview and if it affects

the merits, the same can be taken into consideration. In any case,

the final result was also declared on 5.11.2015 i.e. before the

Screening Test, which took place on 6.3.2016, i.e. much before the

date the Screening Test was conducted.

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that in

this case, some of the candidates could not apply for conveying their

result confidentially and therefore, they could not be discriminated

against.

The said contention was rightly repelled by the learned Single

Bench of this Court. If some of the candidates did not bother to apply

for confidential result, they are to blame themselves for the said

4

lapse. In any case, those who are vigilant and had applied for

confidential result and it was conveyed before the cut off date i.e.

12.10.2015, which made them eligible for applying for the post, their

case has to be considered and decided in terms of the directions of

the learned Single Bench of this Court.

We are of the view that many times, Universities, due to some

administrative reasons or slackness is unable to declare the result

in time. The candidates, who are to get employment or further

admission on the basis of the said result, are not to be made to

suffer for the same. Therefore, most of the Universities have made

provision for declaring the result provisionally/ confidentially, which

is correct approach in such cases. Therefore, whether or not, there

are any rules, the University, which has got the power to declare the

final result, has also got the power to declare the result

confidentially/provisionally before it is officially declared.”

6. The aforesaid observations and findings were sufficient to conclude

the matter but the Division Bench of the High Court further proceeded to

suggest that the Commission should amend the Rules in the manner that

in future, educational qualification should be considered only at the time of

screening or interview.

7. The judgment and order so passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court was in challenge before this Court in the appeals arising out of

SLP(C) Nos. 25184-25214 of 2018. During consideration of the said SLPs,

this Court also considered the prayer for interim relief and taking note of

the number of candidates projected before it and looking to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the Commission

to leave the posts vacant, this Court passed the interim order dated

27.11.2018 in the following terms: -

“1. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf the

applicants in I.A.No.144358/2018.

2. A prayer has been made in the application not to fill the posts by

the candidates lower in merit to the applicants-respondents, as they

may suffer irreparable loss.

5

3. The dispute is about the provisional result and final result. Since

the statement has been made by learned counsel appearing for the

Haryana Staff Selection Commission to keep the posts vacant, the

respondents are 74 and including the intervenors, number appears

to be 90.

4. Let 90 posts be kept vacant, as offered by the petitioner and the

appointments made shall be subject to the outcome of the special

leave petition. I.A. No. 144358/2018 stands disposed of

accordingly.”

8. The said SLPs and the connected IAs were finally considered and

disposed of by this Court on 01.09.2021. This Court affirmed the views of

the High Court so far the question of eligibility of the candidates possessing

provisional/confidential result was concerned, as long as authenticity of

such result was not in doubt. This Court held that the candidates concerned

(the respondents) cannot be said to be not qualified on the cut-off date as

the provisional/confidential result had been declared by the respective

universities in their favour prior to the said date and the applications were

filed well within time with such provisional/confidential result. Thus, this

Court declined to interfere with the principal part of the order impugned.

However, the other directions by the Division Bench of the High Court to

the Commission, to amend the Rules, were found to be rather

unnecessary, particularly when those aspects were not the matters in

issue. Therefore, the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High

Court beyond the subject-matter of the writ petitions were disapproved and

were set aside.

9. While concluding on the matter, this Court took note of the interim

order dated 27.11.2018 and, looking to the circumstances of the case and

the facts as projected, issued directions as under: -

6

“Since this Court had, vide interim order dated 27.11.2018,

directed that 90 posts be kept vacant by the Haryana Staff Selection

Commission/appellant i.e., 74 posts for the private respondents

herein and remaining 16 posts for the intervenors who had till then

filed intervention applications, we direct that the said 90 posts be

offered to the 74 private respondents and 16 intervenors (who have

filed the intervention application prior to the passing of the order

dated 27.11.2018) within four weeks from today, and they shall be

given appointment on due verification, without any delay.

It is further provided that the aforesaid 90 candidates shall be

placed just below the candidates who have already joined and the

seniority of the 90 candidates shall be on the basis of the inter se

merit among them. The respondents shall not be entitled to any

salary for the period they have not worked, and they would only be

entitled for their due seniority with increment, if any, as their

appointment shall be deemed to be notionally from the date of

appointment of other candidates who were earlier selected and

appointed in response to the advertisement dated 28.06.2015.”

10. The aforesaid directions having not been complied with, some of

the candidates/writ petitioners moved this Court in contempt jurisdiction by

filing Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 888-918 of 2021. Therein, while issuing

notices on 17.01.2022, this Court expected that the respondents would

comply with the order dated 01.09.2021 by the next date. Then, on

16.02.2022, this Court also examined another contempt petition bearing

No. 11 of 2022 and, while issuing notices therein, this Court took note of

laxity on the part of the Commission and observed in relation to the

Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 888-918 of 2021 as under: -

“CONMT.PET.(C) No. 888-918/2021 in C.A. No. 5065-5095/2021

By order dated 01.09.2021, this Court had directed that the

concerned 90 candidates shall be appointed and placed just below

the candidates who had already joined and the seniority of the 90

candidates shall be on the basis of the inter se merit among them.

The appointments were to be made within four weeks from the date

of the order dated 01.09.2021. Since the appointments were not

made by the respondents/alleged contemnors, notice was issued to

the respondents/alleged contemnors in these contempt petitions on

29.11.2021. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondents/alleged contemnors in which they have stated that 35

7

candidates out of 90 have been offered appointments and that too

only after the contempt notice was issued to the

respondents/alleged contemnors. In the counter affidavit, nothing

has been stated about what steps had been taken by the

respondents/alleged contemnors within four weeks, which time was

granted by this Court to them to appoint the said 90 candidates.

It is unfortunate that the candidates, who got favourable order of

this Court, have to again rush to this Court to get the order

implemented. Since no explanation has been given by the

respondents/alleged contemnors as to what steps they had taken

within four weeks time which was granted to them and further the

order has yet not been fully complied even after the issuance of the

notice in these contempt petitions, we direct that the

respondents/alleged contemnors be present personally on the next

date of hearing so as to enable the Court, if necessary, to frame the

charges.

List on 15.03.2022.”

11. Then, on 15.03.2022, this Court took note of the submissions made

on behalf of the contemnors that the appointment letters had been issued

to 90 candidates who were directed to be appointed by the order dated

01.09.2021. While granting time to the petitioners to file response, the

matters were adjourned while dispensing with personal presence of the

contemnors. However, thereafter, Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 539-

569 of 2020 and the other connected matters were directed to be listed

before the Bench that had passed the order dated 01.09.2021. The

contempt petitions were also later on ordered to be placed with the said

Miscellaneous Applications. In this manner, these applications and

contempt petitions have been placed before us for consideration alongwith

several other applications seeking intervention/direction/clarification.

12. The crux of submissions of the Commission and its prayer for

modification with respect to relevant facts could be usefully reproduced

from the contents of their application as follows: -

8

“10. That in continuation of para no 6 of present application, it is

relevant to bring to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court that out of

total 90 respondents the Haryana Staff Selection Commission could

only recommend total 44 respondents as only these are the

candidates who are falling in merit zone after considering their

confidential results valid for the posts in question. Further, it is

pertinent to mention here that the need of clarification arises here

as in judgement dated 01.09.2021 (reproduced in para no 2 of

present application) the Hon'ble Court directed to offer appointment

to these 90 respondents. But as mentioned in para no 6 above it is

reiterated at the cost of repetition that the number of respondents

are having lesser marks than the marks secured by last selected

candidate (also known as cut off marks) in their respective category.

Further, there are number of candidates who are found to be placed

higher in merit than the respondents and by ignoring the preferential

right of meritorious candidates appointment non-meritorious to

respondents cannot be offered without bringing the said fact to the

kind attention of this Hon'ble Court.

Further, it is also pertinent to mention here that there are

similarly situated candidates (as like respondents) who have

applied for the post of PGT and TGT but could not get selected as

they were also declared ineligible at time of scrutiny of documents

on account of confidential results. If confidential result of such

similarly situated candidates is considered then number of such

candidates are again higher in merit than the respondents in the

present petition and preferential right of such similarly situated

candidates cannot be defeated without bringing the said fact to

attention of this Hon'ble Court.

11 That as already submitted above, COCP NO.... and COCP

No.... arising out of judgement dated 01.09.2021 passed in Civil

Appeal No. 5065-5095 of 2021 are filed before this Hon'ble Court

for the implementation of the above said judgement and the same

are listed before this Hon'ble Court on 16.02.2022.

11A. That, further the Hon'ble High Court had granted relief to the

respondents in the present case but various other similar writ

petitions involving the same issue of confidential result are pending

before the Hon'ble High Court as they were adjourned over a period

of time Sine Die in view of the above said petitions pending before

this Hon'ble Court. That it is further pertinent to mention that after

this Hon'ble Court decided the SLP on 01.09.2021, many LPA/ writs

pending before the Hon'ble High Court were decided subsequently

on various dates as 25.11.2021, 03.12.2021, 17.12.2021,

21.12.2021. The list of the cases i.e. writs and LPA's decided by the

Hon'ble High Court is attached at Annexure-A/8. It is further

pertinent to mention that certain writs and LPAs are still pending

before the Hon'ble High Court on the same issue. The list of cases

i.e. writs and LPA's pending before the Hon'ble High Court is also

annexed as Annexure-A/9. After the above judgement dated

01.09.2021, many representations have been received from the

candidates who had been considered ineligible on account of their

9

confidential result and are now claiming parity with the respondents

in the present case.

12. That with regard to the direction of this Hon'ble Court in

judgement dated 01.09.2021, to place the 90 respondents just

below the candidates who were selected earlier, it is pertinent to

mention here that the recommendation of candidates/merit list is

prepared on the basis of marks of the candidates in written

examination and viva-voce etc. as per criteria. If any candidate is

having higher marks than the candidate who was selected earlier in

the same advertisement, then such candidate who is having higher

marks is having preferential right to be considered on top merit in

comparison to the candidate who is having lesser marks. Further,

merit is always prepared on the basis of marks and not on the basis

of date of joining and as such the respondents who are having

higher marks than the candidates selected earlier for the post in

question were placed on their actual merit position. Thus, after

declaration of result on the basis of selection criteria notified for the

various subjects/posts of PGT and TGT, the placement of the

candidates in the original result is prepared before submitting it to

the concerned requisitioning department. The selection criteria on

the basis of which final result was prepared for the post of PGT as

well as TGT is mentioned in para no 3 of present application. Thus,

seniority of candidate changes with change in marks and date of

birth and candidates with higher marks cannot be placed below in

merit than the candidates who secured lesser marks.

13. That in the above facts and circumstances it is in the interest

of justice that the clarifications on the issues mentioned above may

kindly be granted.

14. That the applicants, therefore, most respectfully prays that this

Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

PRAYER

a) Allow the present application and clarify the judgement dated

01.09.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court as prayed for in para no

10 and 12 of present application and/or

b) Pass further such orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case.

For such act of Kindness the petitioner shall ever remain

grateful as in duty bound.”

13. The position has been clarified as regards offer of appointment in

the affidavit filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government in its

School Education Department, in the following terms: -

“6. That the whole selection process spreading in various stages

starting from issuing advertisement until the declaration of final

result has been carried out by the HSSC. The subsequent role of

the Department of issuing the offer of appointment came into play

only after getting the subject wise recommendations received after

10

verification of documents from the HSSC over a period of time. After

receiving recommendations, the offer of appointment has been

issued to 90 candidates in an expeditious manner by the

Department.

7. That this Hon'ble Court at the time of dismissing the SLP (C) No.

25184-25214 of on 01.09.2021, directed to offer said 90 posts to

respondents/interveners within four weeks. The, HSSC had the

recommendations pertaining to the respondents alongwith

interveners on different dates mentioned as in following table: -

Sr.

No.

Subject Number of

Candidates

Date of

Recommend

ation

Offer of

Appointment

issued by

Department

of School

Education on

1. PGT

Punjabi

02 25.01.2021

(Received on

10.11.2021)

04.02.2022

(Delay occurred

due to outbreak

of Pandemic

COVID-19)

2. PGT

Psychology

03 23.02.2022 02.03.2022

3. PGT

Mathematics

31 16.01.2019,

31.01.2022 &

23.02.2022

06.03.2019,

08.02.2022;

14.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

4. PGT

Chemistry

14 18.01.2022

& 3.02.2022

08.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

5. PGT

Sociology

07 18.01.2022

& 23.02.2022

08.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

6. PGT

Physics

10 21.01.2022 14.02.2022

7. PGT

History

09 02.02.2022,

15.02.2022 &

23.02.2022

14.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

8. PGT

Economics

06 04.02.2022

& 23.02.2022

14.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

9. TGT

Science

03 12.02.2022 14.02.2022

10. PGT

Commerce

04 04.02.2022

& 23.02.2022

14.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

11

11. PGT

English

02 21.01.2022

& 23.02.2022

14.02.2022 &

02.03.2022

12. PGT

Sanskrit

01 Advertisement

Withdrawn on

dated

09.02.2021 due

to Court

Litigations

pending before

the Hon’ble

Punjab &

Haryana High

Court.

13. TGT

English

01 Advertisement

Withdrawn on

dated

19.02.2021 due

to Court

Litigations

pending

before the

Hon’ble

Punjab &

Haryana High

Court.

-- Total 93 ------- -------

8. That as on today, 90 the respondents and intervenors in SLP. No.

25184-25214 of 2018 have been duly issued offer of appointment

as recommended by HSSC. The Department has complied with the

directions of this Hon'ble Court. The Deponent tenders its sincere

apology for delay in compliance of the direction of the judgment

dated 01.09.2021. The copies of recommendations received from

HSSC and offer of appointments issued by the Department are

appended alongwith as Annexure R-1/1 (Colly) and Annexure R-

1/2 (Colly) respectively.

9. That in view of the submissions made above, the Deponent most

humbly submits that the efforts had all along been made bonafidely

and the orders of this Hon'ble Court have been implemented now.

The Deponent once again regrets and humbly tenders his

unqualified apology for the delay.”

14. The Commission has pointed out its stand and compliance in the

affidavit of its Secretary while stating, inter alia, as under: -

“2. That there was no malafide intention of the authorities of

Commission at any point of time to circumvent the judgement dated

12

01.09.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court by taking recourse to

unsustainable justification. The deponent at any point of time is

bound to act fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with the orders

of this Court but reason for delay in recommendation was out of total

13 categories of posts posts involved in SLP No. 25184-25214 of

2018 the Commission, because of withdrawal of 2 posts by the

requisitioning department i.e. PGT Sanskrit under category 16 of

Advt. no. 4/2015 and TGT English under category 1 of Advt. no.

9/2015 the Commission could not recommend the candidates for 2

categories of posts. Further, many candidates who have

subsequent to judgement dated 01.09.2021 been found to be higher

in merit than the respondents in SLP No. 25184-25214 of 2018 and

clarification to this effect was required as to whether merit of

candidate can be compromised when candidates higher in merit

than respondents are available. However, as the Clarification

application no. 24570 of 2022 could not be taken up for hearing on

16.02.2022, the Commission thereafter has recommended all the

petitioners involved in SLP 25184-25214 of 2018 except the

candidates who applied for the post of TGT English and PGT

Sanskrit as also mentioned above.”

*** *** ***

“3. That in the judgement dated 01.09.2021 this Hon'ble Court in

view of order dated 27.11.2018 in SLP No. 25184-25214 of 2018

directed to give appointment to 90 candidates. However, as per

memo of parties of SLP No. 25184-25214 of 2018 alongwith

interlocutory applications filed before 27.11.2018 the total number

is 93 instead of 90 candidates as also shown in table drawn above

in para no. 2. The details of these 93 candidates alongwith their SLP

or I. A no. is annexed as Annexure R-3/2.

4. That the deponent here prays that the compliance report of

judgement dated 01.09.2021 may please be taken on record. By

23.02.2022 all the 93 candidates have been duly recommended

except the candidate namely Ms. Sangita for the post of PGT

Sanskrit and Mr. Deepak for the post of TGT English as those two

posts have been withdrawn by the requisitioning department after

filing of SLP. Copy of recommendation letters of all candidates

involved in SLP is placed are Annexure R-3/3.

Further, it is relevant to bring to the kind knowledge of this

Hon'ble Court that out of total 93 candidates interview of 14

candidates were pending. Wherein, 5 candidates remained absent

during the interview and thus no mark of interview could be awarded

to such candidates, yet the said 5 candidates have also been

recommended by Commission in compliance of the judgement

dated 01.09.2021.”

15. A variety of submissions have been advanced before us in relation

to various applications moved by the respective parties as also in relation

to the contempt petitions. The present one being essentially the

13

proceedings for clarification of the orders passed by this Court with needful

directions, and to examine if there be any case of wilful or deliberate

disobedience, we need not elaborate on the variegated submissions made

by the parties standing at different footings. Suffice it to notice in a nutshell

that as per the Commission, the operative part of the order dated

01.09.2021 is likely to result in undue advantage to those candidates who

have not even secured cut-off marks and at the same time, it is likely to

result in denial of the right of such candidates who are found to be standing

higher in merit. It is also the submission of the Commission that there are

other similarly situated candidates who were declared ineligible at the time

of scrutiny on account of provisional/confidential results and if the

provisional/confidential results of such similarly situated candidates are

considered, then a number of such candidates would again be higher in

merit than the respondents of the appeal and the preferential rights of such

similarly situated candidates is likely to be defeated. In continuity, it has

also been pointed out by the Commission that various similar writ petitions/

intra-court appeals involving similar issues of provisional/confidential result

have been decided by the High Court or are pending in the High Court, as

they were adjourned over a period of time sine die in view of the matter

being pending in this Court. The major part of grievance of the intervening

applicants is that literal interpretation and application of the order passed

by this Court may result in giving preference to less meritorious candidates.

The submissions on behalf of the candidates who have been found

14

meritorious amongst this lot of 90/93 candidates is to maintain their

appointment as they nevertheless stand in merit and there cannot be any

exception to their appointment. The submissions on behalf of other

candidates, who are allegedly standing lower in merit, are to the effect that

their appointments be maintained for the same having been accorded

pursuant to the long-drawn litigation. The alternative submissions on their

behalf are to provide for their accommodation in several other vacancies

available with the Government and in that regard, it is submitted that about

3000 vacancies are cumulatively available in all the disciplines.

16. We have given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and

have examined the matter in its totality,

17. While issuing directions in the order dated 01.09.2021, this Court

had taken note of the interim order dated 27.11.2018 and keeping that in

view, it was provided that the offer of appointment shall be made against

the said 90 vacancies within 4 weeks to 74 private respondents and 16

intervenors; and they were to be given appointment on due verification

without delay. In the totality of circumstances, we had also considered it

appropriate to provide that the aforesaid 90 candidates shall be placed

below the candidates who had already joined and seniority amongst these

90 candidates would be on the basis of inter se merit. The crucial factor as

regards the pendency of other writ petitions in the High Court or any matter

similarly decided by the High Court as also the particular points in relation

to other meritorious candidates did not come up for fuller exposition before

15

this Court. Even the application seeking clarification/modification was filed

late in the month of February, 2022 and that also remained pending when

the orders for compliance were passed in the contempt matters. Be that as

it may, it remains fundamental in dispensation of justice that the act of the

Court should not be to the prejudice of anyone (actus curiae neminem

gravabit). When it comes to the question of merit, the principles of this

maxim are of more serious and emphatic application.

18. A look at the background aspects makes it clear that this long-

drawn litigation had its genesis in the Commission taking an entirely

unjustified view of ignoring provisional/confidential results even when they

were duly verified by the universities. This approach of the Commission

was not approved by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of

the High Court; and the views of the High Court were emphatically affirmed

by this Court. Obviously, the unjustified stand of the Commission primarily

led to the delay in the process. Furthermore, if the Commission found that

the directions in the order dated 01.09.2021 were requiring

clarification/modification, they ought to have moved this Court well within

the time of four weeks, but they chose to appear late and rather seems to

have moved into action only after contempt petitions were filed in this Court

and notices were issued. Yet again, even these aspects cannot be allowed

to operate prejudicial to the interests of persons standing higher in merit

when the process of appointment against the vacancies, which was earlier

on hold pursuant to the interim order of this Court, is taken forward; and the

16

orders of the Court cannot be allowed to operate at conflict with the

requirements of merit. In other words, any eventuality leading to the

advantage of less meritorious candidates at the cost of meritorious one has

to be eschewed. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we would, of

course, enter one caveat that the benefits flowing from the order dated

01.09.2021 could only be extended to the candidates who had approached

either the High Court or this Court before passing of the said order and

cannot be indiscriminately extended to the persons who chose to remain

fence-sitters and did not assert their rights at the relevant point of time.

19. It is also noteworthy that in the directions dated 01.09.2021, this

Court had provided for inter se merit of the said 90 candidates and they

were to be given appointment on due verification. The inter se merit would

obviously depend upon the candidates facing the interview and to be

appointed only if coming within the zone of selection as per the marks

obtained by the last candidate in the category in which each of them had

applied. Moreover, none of the candidates who had been appointed

pursuant to the orders passed by this Court could claim continuance at the

cost of more meritorious eligible candidates of the same selection process.

20. Taking note of all the facts and circumstances, it is considered

appropriate and hence observed and directed, in continuity with the order

dated 01.09.2021, as under: -

17

(1) The directions issued by this Court shall be read alongwith

the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the order

dated 23.10.2017.

(2) The two posts respectively of PGT Sanskrit and TGT

English, which had been withdrawn on 10.02.2021 and

22.02.2021, were obviously not available for being offered and

the Commission need not make any offer in that regard; the

offer if made shall stand annulled ab initio.

(3) The selections against the posts which were ordered to be

kept vacant by the order dated 27.11.2018 are to be made with

reference to the merit standing of the candidates while treating

the candidates whose provisional/confidential result had been

declared before the cut-off date as eligible. In this regard, it is

also clarified that the benefit of the order passed by the High

Court, as approved by this Court, shall be available only to the

candidates who had approached this Court or the High Court

before passing of the order dated 01.09.2021 and not others.

(4) Obviously, the candidates whose cases have been

decided by the High Court or are pending in the High Court (as

per Annexures ‘A8’ and ‘A9’ of the application filed on behalf

of the Commission) would also be governed by this order.

(5) In the order dated 27.11.2018, this Court had made all the

appointments subject to the decision of this Court. The

18

Commission appears right in its submissions that the

recommendations are made on the basis of the marks

obtained in written test and viva-voce and a candidate having

higher marks than the candidate selected earlier, ordinarily,

should not be placed below in rank. A substantial number of

candidates among the respondents had been those who had

been deprived of their right to be selected on the baseless

proposition of the Commission. On being appointed after the

judgment of this Court, their appointment ought to relate back

to the original date of selection. In the order dated 01.09.2021,

we had provided in regard to such persons, that their

appointment shall be deemed to be notionally from the date of

appointment of other candidates who were earlier appointed in

response to the advertisement dated 28.06.2015. Of course,

we had provided that these newly appointed candidates would

not be entitled to any salary for the period they had not worked

but shall be entitled for due seniority and increment, if any. In

continuity with such directions, it is provided that the

Commission would be expected to recast the merit in

accordance with law. Therein, of course, the candidates who

had chosen not to appear for interview or not to agitate the

issue in question, would not be entitled for consideration.

19

(6) Until the Commission carries out the requirements of this

order and recasts the merit position and the eligible candidates

are issued fresh offer of appointment, status quo as existing

today shall be maintained. However, after recasting the merit

list, the cases of those candidates who have been given the

offer of appointment pursuant to the orders passed by this

Court earlier but are to be denied appointment due to merit

standing, may be considered for accommodation against the

existing vacancies, but only in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions/modifications, all the applications

including the Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

21. No case of wilful or deliberate disobedience being made out, the

contempt petitions are disposed of; notices are discharged.

.…....……………………. J.

(VINEET SARAN) 1

.…....……………………. J.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI)

NEW DELHI;

MAY 09, 2022.