GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS

                   [201 O] 12 S.C.R. 839


          GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS                         A
                              v.
               STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
              (Civil Appeal No. 9227 of 2010)

                    OCTOBER 22, 2010
                                                                 B
   [G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

    Service Law:

     Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers c
(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001 - r.
5(4)(b) - Contractual teacher- Selection and appointment of
- Allegation that no proper advertisement for reservation for
ex-servicemen was issued, and near relatives of members of
selection Committee appeared as candidates for selection - D
PIL by way of writ petition filed challenging the appointment
- Quashing of the entire selection process - On appeal, held:
Issue being a service dispute, PIL was not maintainable -
Alleged participation of near relatives in the selection process_
would not vitiate the entire selection process - OnJy the illegal E
beneficiaries to be weeded out from the selection process -
It cannot be said that advertisement was so made so as to
prevent ex-servicemen from applying - Persons selected
have already put in 3 years of service - High Court did not
properly balance the equities - Thus, order of High Court is
quashed and selection proceedings are upheld - Public F
Interest Litigation - Equity.

     The appellants were selected and accordingly
appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak (contractual
teachers) in Panchayat Schools under the provisions of           G
the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual Teachers
(Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001.
The said appointments were challenged in Public Interest
Litigation by way of two writ petitions on the ground that
                          839                                    H
    840      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 12 S.C.R.

A there was no proper advertisement for reservation for ex-
  servicemen; and that the near relatives of the members
  of the selection committee appeared as candidates for
  selection respectively. The High Court allowed the writ
  petitions by quashing the entire selection process. The
B appellants though not impleaded in either of the two writ
  petitions were affected by the decision of the High Court
  and they filed review petitions. The High Court dismissed
  the review petitions. Therefore, the appellants filed the
  instant appeals.
c         Allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1.1 The dispute in the instant case is over
  selection and appointment which is a service matter. A
  PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. [Paras 14 and
D 15) (848-A-B]

         1.2 The High Court while dismissing the review
    petitions stated that in view of the grave irregularity of
    allowing near relations to appear in the selection process,
E   the entire selection had been rightly set aside. This
    finding is a rather sweeping one as factually it appears
    that in W.P. (C) No.63/2002 none of the members of the
    selection committee allowed their near relatives to appear
    as candidates. The selection process had been struck
    down on the ground of presence of near relatives in WP
F   (C) No.1529/2001 alone and not in WP (C) No.63/2002.
    Even in WP (C) No.1529/2001 an order dated 10/12/2001,
    prior to the dismissal of the review petition, was made by
    the District Collector after conducting an inquiry that out
    of the three alleged cases of relatives of the selectors
G   being selected, two were not 'relatives' as defined under
    Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act,
    1993. 'JP' who was found to be a 'relative' of 'LS', a
    member of the District Panchayat, within the meaning of
    Section 40 was interviewed, but was never selected. This
H   was certified by the Chief Executive Officer of the District
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 841
              M.P. AND OTHERS
Panchayat. [Para 23] [850-B-F]                                A

     1.3 The alleged participation of near relatives in the
selection process was not such a factor as to vitiate the
entire selection process. Even if there were some illegal
beneficiaries from the selection process, they should         8
have been weeded out instead of striking down the entire
selection process. [Para 24] (850-G]

    Charanjit Singh and Ors. vs. Harinder Sharma and Ors.
(2002) 9 SCC 732; Union of India and Ors. v. Rajesh P.
U.Puthuvalnikathu and Anr. (2003) 7 SCC 285, referred to.     c
     1.4 As regard the issue of selection and appointment
of ex-servicemen as a reserved category, while in
Mehagaon 5 ex-servicemen had been appointed out of a
total of 9 applicants, in Raun none had been so               D
appointed. If at all there was an issue with respect to the
reservation policy of the ex-servicemen, it ought to have
been brought up as a service dispute and not in a PIL.
The High Court, with due respect, should have displayed
a little more restraint and balance before quashing a         E
selection process in which the persons selected had
already put in 3 years of service. (Para 26] (852-A-C]

     1.5 Para 10 of the application form for the candidates
stated that if the applicant was either a handicap or an
ex-serviceman then he was required to mention so in the       F
application form and that a certificate to the same effect
from a competent authority should be enclosed. In WP
(C) No.1529/2001, 9 ex-servicemen applied, out of whom
5 were selected and appointed in the reserved category.
The rest 4 were not selected in the selection process.        G
Therefore, it cannot be said that the advertisement was
so made as to prevent ex-servicemen from applying.
[Para 27] [852-D-E]

    1.6 In deciding these issues, the High Court should       H
    842    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A have been mindful of the fact that an order for
  cancellation of appointment would render most of the
  appellants unemployed. Most of them were earlier
  teaching in non-formal education centers, from where
  they had resigned to apply in response to the
B advertisement. They had left their previous employment
  in view of the fact that for their three year long teaching
  experiences, the interview process in the present
  selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent.
  It also gave them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to
c their age. Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High
  Court's order, they would be effectively unemployed as
  they cannot even revert to their earlier jobs in the non-
  formal education centers, which have been abolished
  since then. This would severely affect the economic
  security of many families. Most of them are between the
0
  age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of
  finding anothe;- job are rather dim. Some of them were in
  fact awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of
  their appointment by the High Court. [Para 28] (852-F-H;
E 853-A-8]

      1.7 With utmost respect to the High Court, equities
  were not properly balanced in the exercise of discretion
  by the High Court. The impugned judgments of the High
  Court are quashed. The selection proceedings are
F upheld. [Paras 29 and 30] [853-8-C]

      Dr. Ouryodhan Sahu and Ors. vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra
  nd Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 273; B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka
  Urban      Water    Supply     and     Drainage    Board
G Employees'Association and Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II);
  Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
  (2005) 1 SCC 590; Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B.
  (2004) 3· SCC 349; Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto
  and Ors. (MANU/SC/9654/2010); Prabodh Verma and Ors.
  vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 251;
H
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 843
              M.P. AND OTHERS
and Ors. (MANUISC/965412010); Prabodh Verma and Ors.           A
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 251;
Ramarao and others vs. All India Backward Class Bank
Employees Welfare Association and Ors. (2004) 2 SCC 76;
B. Ramanjini and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.
(2002) 5 sec 533 - referred to.                                B
                     Case Law Reference:

    (1998) 1 sec 273         Referred to.         Para 16

    (2006) 11 sec 731 (II) Referred to.           Para 17
                                                               c
    (2005) 1 sec 590         Referred co.         Para 18

    (2004) 3 sec 349         Referred to.         Para 19

    (1984) 4 sec 251         Referred to.         Para 22
                                                               D
    (2004) 2 sec 76          Referred to.         Para 22
    (2002) 5 sec 533         Referred to.         Para 22
    (2002) 9 sec 732         Referred to.         Para 24

    (2003l 1 sec 285         Referred to.         Para 25      E

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
9227 of 2010.

   · From the Judgment & Order date 6.8.2004 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicaure Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior    F
in Review Petition in R.P. No. 1071 of 2003.

                           WITH

C.A. Nos. 9228-9230, 9231, 9232-9233 of 2010.                  G
    Pravin H. Parekh, Basava, Prabhu S. Patil, Shakun
Sharma, Arjun Garg, Vishal Prasad (for Parekh & Go.) for the
Appellants.

                                                               H
    844      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010) 12 S.C.R.


A       Pramod Swarup, Pradeep Purohit, B.S. Banthia. Pareena
    Swarup for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      GANGULY, J. 1. Leave is granted in all these Special
B Leave Petitions.

         2. These appeals arise from the decision delivered on
    06.08.2004 by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Review
    Petitions 1071/2003, 1074/2003, and decision of the High
c   Court of Madhya Pradesh in WP(C) 63/2002 and WP (C) 1529/
    2001 dated 03.11.2003. The Review Petitions were filed by
    those teachers who, though not impleaded in the writ petitions,
    were affected by High Court's decision dated 3.11.2003.

      3. Appellants are a group of Grade II and Ill school teachers
D working in Panchayat Schools as Samvida Shala Shikshak
  (contractual teachers). They had been appointed under the
  provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Contractual
  Teachers (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Rules, 2001
  (hereinafter "2001 Rules"). These selection rules which had
E come into force on 11.07.2001 were made in exercise of the
  powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 95 read with
  sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Madhya Pradesh
  Panchayati Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam 1993 (Act 1 of
  1994).

        4. Pursuant to the provisions of the said rules, an
    advertisement was issued by the Zila Panchayat Office, District
    Bhind, to initiate selection process for the appointments. All the
    appellants had applied and were selected and consequently
    appointed as Samvida Shala Shikshak.

        5. These appointments however were challenged in two
    Public Interest Litigations being WP(C) 1529/2001 and WP(C)
    63/2002, inter alia, on the ground that in contravention of the
    2001 Rules, no proper advertisement for reservation for ex-
     GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 845
       M.P. AND OTHERS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

 members of the selection committee had their near relatives           A
 appear as candidates for selection. While WP (C) 1529/2001
 challenged the appointments made by Janpad Panchayat
 Mehagaon, WP (C) 63/2002 challenged the appointments
 made by Janpad Panchayat Raun. Both the panchayats are
 within the district of Bhind, Madhya Pradesh.                         B

        Rule 5 (4) (b) of 2001 Rules provides:

              "For each category of the vacant posts, the
        reservation shall be -
                                                                       c
         (i)       )()()(

         (ii)      )()()(

         (iii)     10% for ex-army personnel;
                                                                       D
         (iv)      Reservation shall also be provided to any other
                   category which is notified by the Government from
                   time to time.

        6. Para 5 (viii) of the memo dated 11.07.2001 provides:
'\                                                                     E
        (5) Some provisions of the Contractual Teachers
        (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2001 are to
        be specifically kept in mind, which are as follows:-

        (i) xxx
                                                                       F
        (ii)xxx

        (iii)xxx

       (iv)xxx
                                                                       G
       (v)xxx

       (vi)xxx

       (vii)xxx
                                                                       H
    846       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A         (viii) Prior to the constitution of the interview board it will
          be ensured that the son/daughter or real relatives of the
          Members of the Board are not participating in the
          interview. It will be appropriate that an undertaking may be
          taken from the Members in this behalf."
B
         7. Before the High Court the petitions were heard mainly
    on the points mentioned above.

        8. With respect to WP No. 1529/2001 the High Court
  allowed the writ petition and ordered the cancellation of
C appointments, inter alia, on the grounds that appointmentswere
  illegal as members of the selection committee allowed their
  near relatives to appear in the selection process. It stated that
  on the basis of an inquiry conducted by the District Collector,
  show-cause notices were issued to three members of the
D selection committee asking them as to why did their relatives
  appeared as candidates in the selection.

       9. The High Court further held that in contravention of Rule
  5 (4) (b) which mandated 10 per cent reservation for ex-
E servicemen, no proper advertisement had been made so as
  to invite applications from ex-servicemen. The High Court
  noted that the Respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh had
  accepted this mistake on its part. On the question as to whether
  those who had already been appointed and were being affected
  by the said order of quashing the appointments, were to be
F impleaded or not, the Court held that in an earlier order dated
  07.11.2001, it had stated that the issuance of the appointment
  letters in the concerned matter was subject to the outcome in
  the writ petition. Therefore the question of impleadment of those
  who were appointed did not arise anew.
G
        10. However, in WP No. 63/2002, even though the High
  Court allowed the petition in view of contravention of provision
  for 10 per cent reservation, it held in the writ petition, near
  relatives of the members of the selection committee did not
H appear for selection. Hence, as against the decision in WP (C)
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 847
 M.P. AND OTHERS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
1529/2001, the Court in WP (c) 63/2002 did not strike down            A
the selection on the basis of the presence of near relatives.
Instead it invalidated the selection only for being in violation of
Rule 5 (4) (b) which mandated a reservation of 10 per cent for
ex-servicemen.
                                                                      8
     11. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court some of
the successful candidates, who are appellants herein, and were
not impleaded in either of the two writ petitions, filed Review
Petitions No. 107112003, 1074/2003 and 111712003 before the
High Court. They pleaded ·that the selection process was
quashed in WP 1529/2001 and WP 63/2002, to their great                C
prejudice without impleading them to the proceedings. They
further argued whether the alleged improper recruitment of a
handful of candidates had flawed the entire selection is a matter
to be considered by the High Court. They also argued that in a
service matter where express remedy is available, a Public            D
Interest Litigation is not maintainable.

     12. The High Court in its order dated 06.08.2004
dismissed all the review petitions. While upholding the
impugned orders it said that having regard to the grave               E
irregularity in the selection process, the quas~ing of the entire
selection process was just and proper.

     13. In these appeals it is contended that WP(C) 1529/2001
and WP (C) 63/2002 cannot be called Public Interest petitions
as there was an element of Personal Interest involved. This is        F
clear from the fact that these· Pl Ls had been filed with respect
to only two janpads, whereas the advertisement inviting
applications for selection, and the consequent selection
process had been made in six janpads. Also, the challenge to
the advertisement was made as late as three months after the          <;3
date of its issuance.

     14. However, the main argument by the appellants against
entertaining WP (C) 1520/2001 and WP (C) 63/2002 is on the
                                                                      H
    848     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   ground that a PIL in a service matter is not maintainable. This
    Court is of the opinion that there is considerable merit in that
    contention.

         15. It is common ground that dispute in this case is over
    selection and appointment which is a service matter.
B
        16. In the case of Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others vs.
  Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273, a three
  judge Bench of this Court held a PIL is not maintainable in
  service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J.
c explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under
  Article 323-A in the backdrop of extraordinary jurisdiction of the
  High Courts under Articles 226 and 227. This Court held "if
  public interest litigations at the instance of strangers are
  allowed to be entertained by the (Administrative) Tribunal, the
D very object of speedy disposal of service matters would get
  defeated" (para 18). Same reasoning applies here as a Public
  Interest Litigation has been filed when the entire dispute relates
  to selection and ar:ipointment.
         17. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply
E   & Drainage Board Employees' Association and others,
    reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II), this Court held that in
    service matters only the non-appointees can assail the legality
    of the appointment procedure (See para 61, page 755 of the
    report).
F
       18. This view was very strongly expressetl by this Court in
  Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and others,
  reported in (2005) 1 sec 590, by pointing out that despite the
  decision in Duryodhan Sahu (supra), Plls in service matters
G ·continue unabated'. This Court opined that High Courts should
  'throw out' such petitions in view of the decision in Duryodhan
  Sahu (supra) (Para 16, page 596).

        19. Same principles have been reiterated in Ashok Kumar
    Pandey v. State of W.B., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 349, at
H
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 849
 M.P. AND OTHERS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.)
page 358 (Para 16).                                                 A

     20. In a recent decision of this Court delivered on
30.8.2010, in Hari Bansh Lal v. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and
others, (MANU/SC/9654/2010), it has been held that except in
a case for a writ of 'Quo Warranto', PIL in a service matter is     8
not maintainable (See paras 6 and 7).

     21. The next point urged by the appellants, that they had
never been impleaded in the two petitions, even as orders
passed by the High Court had a direct effect on their livelihood,
also goes to the root of the matter as it violates the principle    C
of audi alteram partem.

     22. This Court in Prabodh Verma and others vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, [(1984) 4 SCC 251 at p. 273) held,
"A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article     D
226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally
affected by its judgment being before it as respondents ... ".
Similarly this Court in Ramarao and others vs. All India
Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and
others, [(2004) 2 SCC 76, at page 86] said, " ... An order issued
                                                                    E
against a person without impleading him as a party and thus,
without giving an opportunity of hearing must be held to be bad
in law. The appellants herein, keeping in view the fact that by
reason of the impugned direction, the orders of promotion
effected in their favour had been directed to be withdrawn,
                                                                    F
indisputably were necessary parties. In their absence,
therefore, the writ petition could not have been effectively
adjudicated upon." Also in B. Ramanjini and others v. State
of Andhra Pradesh and others, [(2002) 5 SCC 533 at pages
542-543, paragraph 19] where selection of certain teachers was
challenged without impleading them, this Court held, "Selection     G
process had commenced long back as early as in 1·993 and it
had been completed. The persons selected were appointed
pursuant to the selections made and had been performing their
duties. However, the selected candidates had not been
impleaded as parties to the proceedings either in their             H
    850      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 12 S.C.R.


A   individual capacity or in any representative capacity. In that
    view of the matter, the High Court ought not to have examined
    any of the questions raised before it in the proceedings initiated
    before it. The writ petitions filed by the respondents concerned
    ought to have been dismissed which are more or less in the
s   nature of a public interest litigation."

        23. The High Court while dismissing the review petitions
  stated that in view of the grave irregularity of allowing near
  relations to appear in the selection process, the entire selection
C had been rightly set aside. This finding is a rather sweeping
  one as factually it appears that in W.P. (C) No.63/2002 none
  of the members of the selection committee allowed their near
  relatives to appear as candidates. It is, therefore, important to
  note that the selection process had been struck down on the
  ground of presence of near relatives in WP (C) No.1529/2001
D alone and not in WP (C) No.63/2002. Furthermore even in WP
  (C) No.1529/2001 an order dated 10/12/2001 (i.e. prior to the
  dismissal of the review petition) was made by the District
  Collector after conducting an inquiry that out of the three alleged
  cases of relatives of the selectors being selected, two were not
E ·relatives' as defined under Section 40 of the Madhya Pradesh
  Panchayati Haj Act. 1993. One Jai Pal Singh who was found
  to be a ·relative' of Layak Singh Gurjar, a member of the District
  Panchayat, within the meaning of Section 40 of the Act was
  interviewed, but was never selected. This has been certified by
F the Chief Executive Officer of the District Panchayat.

       24. From these facts it can be concluded that the alleged
  participation of near relatives in the selection process was not
  such a factor as to vitiate the entire selection process. Even if
G there were some illegal beneficiaries from the selection
  process, they should have been weeded out instead of striking
  down the entire selection process. In Charanjit Singh and
  others vs. Harinder Sharma and others ((2002) 9 SCC 732]
  a similar situation had arisen. In that case, while not approving
H the interference of the High Court in the selection process, this
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND' OTHERS v. STATE OF 851
 M.P. AND OTHERS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
Court held that merely because some of the candidates in the              A
selection process happened to be relatives of the members of
the selection committee, it did not mean that all the candidates
were relatives of the members of the selection committee and
had been illegally selected. It was also held that since the
petition was not made by any of the candidates who had                    8
appeared in the selection process and was instead filed as a
Public Interest Litigation, it was improper for the High Court to
interfere in the matter.

      25. On a more detailed analysis of this issue, in Union of
India and others v. Rajesh P. U., Puthuva/nikathu and another,            C
[(2003) 7 SCC 285 at p. 290, paragraph 6], this Court held that
"In the light of the above and in the absence of any specific or
categorical finding supported by any concrete and relevant
material that widespread infirmities of an all pervasive nature,
which could be really said to have undermined the very process            D
itself in its entirety or as a whole and it was impossible to weed
out the beneficiaries of one or other of irregularities, or
illegalities, if any, there was hardly any justification in law to deny
appointment to the other selected candidates whose selections
were not found to be, in any manner, vitiated for any one or other        E
reasons. Applying an unilaterally rigid and arbitrary standard to
cancel the entirety of the selections despite the firm and positive
information that except 31 of such selected candidates, no
infirmity could be found with reference to others, is nothing but
total disregard of relevancies and allowing to be carried away            F
by irrelevancies, giving a complete go bye to contextual
considerations throwing to winds the principle of proportionality
in going farther than what was strictly and reasonably required
to meet the situation. In short, the Competent Authority
completely misdirected itself in taking such an extreme and               G
unreasonable decision of cancelling the entire selections, wholly
unwarranted and unnecessary even on the factual situation
found too, and totally in excess of the nature and gravity of what
was at stake, thereby virtually rendering such decision to be
irrational".
                                                                          H
    852      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2010] 12 S.C.R.


A       26. Coming to the issue of selection and appointment of
  ex-servicemen as a reserved category, from what has been
  placed before us, we understand that while in Mehagaon 5 ex-
  servicemen had been appointed out of a total of 9 applicants,
  in Raun none had been so appointed. As stated above, if at
  all there was an issue with respect to the reservation policy of
8
  the ex-servicemen it ought to have been brought up as a service
  dispute and not in a PIL. The High Court, with due respect,
  should have displayed a little more restraint and balance before
  quashing a selection process in which the persons selected had
C already put in 3 years of service.

        27. Furthermore it should be noted that para 10 of the
  application form for the candidates stated that if the applicant
  person was either a handicap or an ex-serviceman then he was
  required to mention so in the application form and that a
D certificate to the same effect from a competent authority should
  be enclosed. As noted earlier in WP (C) No.1529/2001 as
  many as 9 ex-servicemen had applied, out of which 5 had been
  selected and appointed in the reserved category. The rest 4
  were not selected in the selection process. Therefore, it would
E be incorrect to say that the advertisement was so made so as
  to prevent ex-servicemen from applying.

       28. More importantly, in deciding these issues, the High
  Court should have been mindful of the fact that an order for
F cancellation of appointment would render most of the appellants
  unemployed. Most of them were earlier teaching in Non-formal
  education centers, from where they had resigned to apply in
  response to the advertisement. They had left their previous
  employment in view of the fact that for their three year long
  teaching experiences, the interview process in the present
G selection was awarding them grace marks of 25 per cent. It had
  also given them a relaxation of 8 years with respect to their age. !
                                                                     1
  Now, if they lose their jobs as a result of High Court's order,
  they would be effectively unemployed as they cannot even revert
  to their earlier jobs in the Non-formal education centers, which
H
GIRJESH SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF 8.53
 M.P. AND OTHERS [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

have been abolished since then. This would severely affect the     A
economic security of many families. Mos.t of them are between
the age group of 35-45 years, and the prospects for them of
finding another job are rather dim. Some of them were in fact
awaiting their salary rise at the time of quashing of their
appointment by the High Court.                                     B

       29. With utmost respect to the High Court, we are
constrained to observe that equities were not properly balanced
in the exercise of discretion by the High Court.

     30. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed.       C
The impugned judgments of the High Court are quashed. The
selection proceedings are upheld.

       31. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

N.J.
                                                                   D
                                                 Appeal allowed.