{"id":191511,"date":"1996-05-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-05-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996"},"modified":"2015-06-10T06:17:00","modified_gmt":"2015-06-10T00:47:00","slug":"prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996","title":{"rendered":"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 319, \t JT 1996 (5)\t219<\/div>\n
Author: N G.T.<\/div>\n
Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPREM SINGH AND OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/05\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nBENCH:\nNANAVATI G.T. (J)\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (4) 319\t  JT 1996 (5)\t219\n 1996 SCALE  (4)354\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7789 OF 1996
\n\t  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.24555 of 1995)
\nShanti Prakash and others
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
The Haryana State Electricity Board and others
\n\t\t\t    WITH
\n\t       CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7790 OF 1996
\n\t  (Arising out of SLP(C) No.25996 of 1995)
\nHaryana State Electricity Board
\nV.\n<\/p>\n
Shri Satbir Singh Bura and ors
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\nNANAVATI, J.\n<\/p>\n
     Leave granted  in the  two SLPs.  Heard learned counsel
\nappearing in all the three appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     These appeals  arise out  of  the\tjudgment  and  order
\npassed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ
\nPetition No. 4012 of 1993. Along with that writ petition the
\nHigh court  also disposed  of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 4716,
\n4885, 5301,  5987, 6024,  6427, 7310, 7884, 8068 of 1993 and
\n15534 of 1994. The High Court allowed all the writ petitions
\nand declared  the selection\/appointments of Respondents 2 to
\n214 in those writ petitions as illegal and quashed the same.
\nAbout  125  selected  candidates  have\tfiled  Civil  Appeal
\nNo.3423 of  1996 and  Civil Appeal  arising  out  of  SLP(C)
\nNo.24555 of  1995. The\tCivil Appeal  arising out  of SLP(C)
\nNo.25996 of  1995  has\tbeen  filed  by\t the  Haryana  State
\nElectricity Board  (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’ )
\nwhich appointed them.\n<\/p>\n
     Two questions  which arise\t for consideration  in these
\nappeals are: (1) Whether it was open to the Board to prepare
\na list\tof as  many as 212 candidates and appoint as many as
\n137 out of that list when the number of posts advertised was
\nonly 62?  (2)  Whether\tthe  High  Court  was  justified  in
\nquashing  the  selection  of  all  the\t212  candidates\t and
\nappointments of 137?\n<\/p>\n
     In October\t 1993 the Board decided to fill up 62 vacant
\nposts of  Junior Engineers  by\tdirect\trecruitment.  By  an
\nadvertisement  published   on  2.11.1991  applications\twere
\ninvited from eligible candidates. 15 posts were reserved for
\nscheduled castes  and scheduled\t tribes\t candidates,  6\t for
\nbackward classes  and 9\t for exservicemen. The last date for
\nreceiving  applications\t was  4.12.1991.  The  advertisement
\nmentioned qualifications  necessary for\t those posts  and it
\nwas further  stated therein that preference will be given to
\nthe candidates\thaving higher qualification. Large number of
\napplications  were   received  and   after  screening\t5955
\napplicants were\t found eligible. 893 candidates appeared for
\ninterview in July 1992. The selection committee selected 212
\nand recommended\t their names  in April 1993. The Board after
\nconsidering the\t latest vacancy\t position  as  on  11.2.1993
\ndecided on  2.4.1993 to\t fill up  147 posts.  Following\t the
\ninstructions of the State Government relating to reservation
\nof posts, the Board distributed vacant posts as under:\n<\/p>\n
     1. General\t\t\t   74\n     2. SC\t\t\t   29\n     3. B.Cs.\t\t\t   15\n     4. ESM\t\t\t   25\n     5. PH\t\t\t    4\n<\/pre>\n
     ———————————–\n<\/p>\n
\t  Total\t\t\t  147\n<\/p>\n
     ———————————–\n<\/p>\n
     It also decided to reduce the share of general category
\nby 24  posts as\t there was  a backlog  of  that\t many  posts
\nreserved  for\tscheduled  castes.  Accordingly,  the  Chief
\nEngineer of  the Board\twho was the appointing authority was
\ndirected to fill up the vacant posts in different categories
\nas under:\n<\/p>\n
     1. General\t\t\t\t\t  50\n     2. Scheduled Castes\t\t\t  53\n     3. Backward Classes\t\t\t  15\n     4. Ex-Servicemen\t\t\t\t  25\n     5. Physical Handicapped\t\t\t   4\n<\/pre>\n
     ————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
\tTotal\t\t\t\t\t 147\n<\/p>\n
     ————————————————–
\n     The Chief\tEngineer was  able to appoint 138 candidates
\nshortly thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
     Some of  the candidates who were not selected\/appointed
\nand one\t person who became eligible soon after the last date
\nfor\treceiving      applications\t challenged\t the
\nselection\/appointments\tby   filing   the   aforesaid\twrit
\npetitions in the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     The following  four contentions  were raised before the
\nHigh Court.  (1) The Board acted in violation of Articles 14
\nand 16\tof the\tConstitution in\t selecting as  many  as\t 212
\ncandidates  and\t  appointing  147   even  though  the  posts
\nadvertised were\t only 62.  (2) No  real benefit was given to
\nthe candidates\tpossessing higher qualifications even though
\nit was\trepresented in\tthe  advertisement  that  preference
\nwould  be   given  to\tthe  candidates\t  possessing  higher
\nqualifications. (3)  About 150\tcandidates were\t interviewed
\nevery day  by each  of the  three selection committees. Each
\ncandidate was  interviewed for\ta very\tshort time. Thus the
\nworth of  the candidate\t was not  properly assessed and this
\ndefect vitiated the entire process of selection. (4) As many
\nas 50  marks were  earmarked for  viva voce  test  and\tthat
\ndefect also vitiated the entire selection.\n<\/p>\n
     With respect  to the  third contention it was stated by
\nthe Board  in its  counter  affidavit  that  each  selection
\ncommittee had  in fact\tinterviewed about 69 candidates only
\non each day and on an average each candidate was interviewed
\nfor about  8 to 9 minutes. As this contention was thus found
\nto be  factually incorrect the High Court rejected the same.
\nThe High  Court also  rejected the fourth contention relying
\nupon the  decision of this Court in Anzar Ahmad vs. State of
\nBihar and  others 1994(1)  SCC 150. The decision of the High
\nCourt on  these two  points is not challenged before us and,
\ntherefore, they\t need no  further  consideration.  The\tHigh
\nCourt upheld  the first\t contention as it was of the opinion
\nthat the  Board committed  a breach  of the  equality clause
\ncontained in  Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because
\nit was\tnot  fair  and\topen  to  the  Board  to  take\tinto
\nconsideration 85  more posts  which became.  available after
\nthe date  of the  advertisement while  preparing the  select
\nlist  and   making  appointments.   As\tregards\t the  second
\ncontention the\tHigh Court did not find any substance in the
\nsubmission  that   the\tBoard  should  have,  in  the  first
\ninstance,  selected  only  those  candidates  who  possessed
\nhigher qualifications  and that\t it  could  have  considered
\nothers only if persons possessing higher qualifications were
\nnot found  otherwise suitable.\tBut it upheld the contention
\nthat as\t the Board  had decided\t to give  preference to\t the
\ncandidates possessing  higher qualifications  it  could\t not
\nhave made the selection “without specifying any advantage to
\nthe candidates”.  In absence of any explanation given by the
\nBoard at  the time  of hearing\tof the writ petitions “as to
\nhow many  marks were  fixed for\t those\thaving\tthe  minimum
\nqualifications and  how many  marks  were  fixed  for  those
\nhaving the  higher qualifications”  the High Court held that
\nthe Board  did not  “at all keep in mind the contents of the
\nadvertisement while  laying down  the criteria\tfor award of
\nmarks”. This  omission\tand  deviation\tfrom  the  condition
\nmentioned in the advertisement, according to the High Court,
\nresulted in  denying benefit of higher qualifications to the
\npetitioners and\t other similarly  situated persons. The High
\nCourt, therefore,  allowed the\tpetitions  and\tquashed\t the
\nselection and appointments made by the Board.\n<\/p>\n
     It was contended by Mr. P.P.Rao, learned senior counsel
\nappearing for  the appellants  in Civil\t Appeal No.3423 1996
\nand the\t learned counsel  appearing for the other appellants
\nthat the  High Court  wrongly held that the Board had either
\noverlooked or  deviated from  the condition  that preference
\nwould be  given to  those candidates  who  possessed  higher
\nqualifications. It  was submitted that though in the counter
\naffidavit filed\t by the\t Board the  correct position in this
\nbehalf was  not\t properly  explained,  the  record  produced
\nbefore\tthe  court  clearly  disclosed\tthat  the  selection
\ncommittee had  before hand  decided the\t norm as regards the
\nmanner in  which preference  was  to  be  given\t for  higher
\nqualifications. It  has been  stated in\t SLP(C) No.24555  of
\n1995 and  it is\t not denied  by\t the  respondents  that\t the
\nselection committee  had adopted  the norm  of\tgiving\tmore
\nmarks for higher qualifications. It had given 2 marks to the
\ncandidates possessing diploma qualification and had obtained
\nupto 75%  marks. 3  marks were given to those candidates who
\npossessed diploma  and had  obtained more than 75% marks and
\nalso to them who had obtained B.E. or B.Tech. degrees. Those
\nwho possessed  AMIE degree  were given 4 marks. 5 marks were
\ngiven to  those candidates  who possessed  M.E.\t or  M.Tech.
\ndegrees. On  the basis\tof this material it can be said that
\nweightage was  in fact\tgiven for higher qualifications. The
\nHigh Court  was, therefore,  not right\tin holding  that the
\nbenefit\t of   higher  qualifications  was  denied  to  those
\ncandidates who\tpossessed them.\t We are\t also of the opinion
\nthat it\t was not  necessary to\tindicate in  advance to\t the
\ncandidates  the\t  manner  in   which   benefit\t of   higher
\nqualifications was  to be  given to  them. Once we find that
\nthe selection committee had fixed the norm in this behalf in
\nadvance and  that norm\twas applied  uniformly\tto  all\t the
\ncandidates it  will have  to be held that it acted in a fair
\nmanner and  did not contravene the provisions of Articles 14
\nand 16\tof the\tConstitution. The  learned counsel  for\t the
\nrespondents, however,  tried to\t support the  finding of the
\nHigh Court  on this  point by contending that in view of the
\nrepresentation made  in the  advertisement what was required
\nto be  done  by\t the  Board  was  to  consider\tfirst  those
\ncandidates who\thad higher qualifications and the candidates
\nwith lesser  qualifications could  have been considered only
\nthereafter. This  contention was rejected by the High Court,
\nand in our opinion rightly. Ordinarily, giving of preference
\nfor higher  qualifications would  imply\t that  other  things
\nbeing equal  the candidates  with higher qualifications will
\nbe preferred.  The representation  made in the advertisement
\ndid not imply or convey that the selection was to be made in
\ntwo stages,  that is,  firstly, the candidates having higher
\nqualifications were to be considered and only thereafter the
\ncandidates with minimum qualifications were to be considered
\nand that  too if  adequate number  of candidates  possessing
\nhigher qualifications  did not\tbecome available. Therefore,
\nthe contention raised on behalf of the respondents has to be
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  next contended  by the  learned counsel for the
\nappellants that\t selection of  candidates in  excess of\t the
\nnumber of  posts advertised  does  not\tper  se\t offend\t the
\nequality  guaranteed   by  Articles   14  and\t16  of\t the
\nConstitution. It  was submitted\t that in view of delay which
\nwas likely  to take  place in  the process  of selection and
\nappointments it\t was permissible  to the  Board to take into
\nconsideration anticipated  vacancies and  make provision for
\nthe same  also. They  further submitted\t that the High Court
\nshould not  have quashed  the selection\t and set  aside\t the
\nappointments at the instance of original writ petitioners as
\nin  any\t case  they  were  not\tselected  by  the  selection
\ncommittee and, therefore, were not likely to get any benefit
\nby getting  the selection  and appointments invalidated. The
\nlearned counsel\t also questioned the locus stand of the writ
\npetitioners as\tall of them except one had taken part in the
\nprocess of selection without any objection They also pointed
\nout that  Petitioner No.3  in Writ Petition No. 4012 of 1993
\nwas not\t even eligible\tto be considered for the post on the
\nlast date for receiving applications.\n<\/p>\n
     In our  opinion, there is no substance in the objection
\nraised with  respect to\t locus stand  of the  original\twrit
\npetitioners. The  candidates could not have anticipated when
\nthey appeared for the interview that the Selection Committee
\nwould  recommend   candidates  and   the  Board\t would\tmake
\nappointments far  in excess  of the  advertised\t posts.\t The
\npetitioner who\twas not\t eligible had  a just grievance that
\ndue to\tappointments of\t candidates in\texcess of  the posts
\nadvertised he was deprived of the right of consideration for
\nappointment against the posts which would have become vacant
\nafter he acquired eligibility.\n<\/p>\n
     The factual  position in this case, as disclosed by the
\nrecord, is  that on 15.10.90 the Board decided to fill up 62
\nvacant posts  of Junior\t Engineers by direct recruitment. On
\n2.11.90 the  Board advertised  those  62  vacant  posts\t and
\ninvited applications  by 4.12.90.  In  the  notification  of
\nvacancies  required   to  be  issued  under  the  Employment
\nExchange Act  and the Rules also the vacancies notified were\n<\/p>\n
62. After the posts were advertised and published but before
\nappointments could  be made  13\t more  posts  became  vacant
\nbecause of  retirement and  12 because of deaths. Meanwhile,
\nthe Board also created 60 new posts of Junior Engineers. The
\nstand taken  by the  respondent-Board before  the High Court
\nwas that  by April  1993, 85  more posts  had become vacant.
\nEven when 62 posts were advertised there was a backlog of 62
\nposts of Junior Engineers and that was through oversight not
\ntaken into  consideration. Out\tof the\tsaid backlog  of  62
\nposts 36 posts were of direct recruitment quota and this had
\ncome to\t the notice of the Board in December 1991. There was
\na backlog of 24 posts belonging to reserved category. It was
\nfor these  reasons that\t on 2.4.1993  the Secretary  of\t the
\nBoard  had  written  to\t the  Chief  Engineer  who  was\t the
\nappointing authority  that as  the list\t of  212  candidates
\nselected by  the selection committee was received and as 147
\nposts were  vacant as on 11.2.93 he should fill up all those
\nvacant posts  as directed  therein. Out of the said list the
\nBoard was able to appoint 138 candidates.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t was  submitted\t by  the  learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants that\t the selection\tprocess which had started on
\n2.11.91 was  completed in  April  1993\twhen  the  selection
\ncommittee forwarded  the list  of selected candidates to the
\nSecretary of  the Board.  In view of this long lapse of time
\nand large number of posts remaining vacant it was
\npermissible to\tthe Board  to make appointments in excess of
\nthe number  of posts advertised, If the Board had not filled
\nup those  posts then its work would have suffered adversely.
\nIt was\tsubmitted that\tbearing in  mind these realities the
\nHigh Court  should have\t adopted a  pragmatic  approach\t and
\nrefrained from\tquashing the selection and appointments made
\nby the\tBoard. In  support of  these contentions the learned
\ncounsel relied\tupon one  decision of the Punjab and Haryana
\nHigh Court and some decisions of this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     In Subhash\t Chander Sharma\t and  others  vs.  State  of
\nHaryana 1984(1)\t SLR 165  the facts  were that as against 60
\nadvertised  posts   the\t Public\t  Service   Commission\t had
\nrecommended almost  double  the\t number\t and  more  than  60
\ncandidates were\t appointed on  the basis  of that selection.
\nRelying upon  the earlier decision of the same High Court in
\nSachida Nand  Sharma and  others  vs.  Subordinate  Services
\nSelection Board.  Haryana decided on 1.6.83 it was contended
\nthat all  appointments beyond  60 should be invalidated. The
\nHigh Court  distinguished its  earlier decision\t in  Sachida
\nNand Sharma’s  case (supra)  and  held\tthat  if  the  State
\nadopted a  pragmatic approach  by taking  into consideration
\nthe  existing  vacancies  in  relation\tto  the\t process  of
\nselection which\t sometimes take\t a couple  of years and made
\nappointments in excess of the posts advertised, then such an
\naction cannot be regarded as unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n
     In Ashok  Kumar Yadav  and others\tvs. State of Haryana
\n1985 Suppl.  (1) SCR  657 what had happened was that Haryana
\nPublic\tService\t Commission  had  invited  applications\t for
\nrecruitment to\t61 posts  in Haryana Civil Service and other
\nallied Services.  The number  of vacancies  rose during\t the
\ntime taken  up in  the written examination and the viva voce
\ntest and  thus in  all 119  posts became available for being
\nfilled. The  Haryana Public  Service Commission,  therefore,
\nselected and  recommended 119  candidates to the Government.
\nWrit Petitions\twere filed  in the  High Court of Punjab and
\nHaryana\t challenging  the  validity  of\t the  selections  on
\nvarious grounds.  The High  Court set aside the selection as
\nit was\tof the\tview that the selection process was vitiated
\nfor more  than one  reason. On appeal, this Court also found
\nsubstance in  the contention that the Haryana Public Service
\nCommission  was\t not  justified\t in  calling  for  interview
\ncandidates representing\t more than  20 times  the number  of
\navailable  vacancies   and  that  the  percentage  of  marks
\nallocated for  the viva\t voce test was unduly excessive. Yet
\nthis Court did not think it just and proper to set aside the
\nselections made\t by the Haryana Public Service Commission as
\nby that\t time  two  years  had\tpassed\tand  the  candidates
\nselected were  already appointed  to various  posts and were
\nworking on those posts since about two years.\n<\/p>\n
     In A.V. Bhogeshwarudu vs. Andhra Pradesh Public Service
\nCommission J.T.\t 1989(4) SC 130 the process of selection had
\nstarted in  1983 and  was completed  in 1987.  The vacancies
\nthat arose  in between\twere also  sought to be accommodated
\nfrom the  recruitment list  prepared  by  the  State  Public
\nService Commission.  The point which arose for consideration
\nwas if\tout of\tthe names  recommended for appointments some
\ncandidates did\tnot join,  whether the\tvacancies  remaining
\nunfilled can  be filled from out of the remaining successful
\ncandidates. This  Court held that there was no justification
\nin insisting  that instead  of filling\tup the\tvacancies by
\nrecommended candidates\ta fresh\t selection list\t should\t  be
\nmade. This  decision is,  therefore, not  relevant for\t the
\npurpose of  this appeal.  So also,  the cases  of    Neelima
\nShangla\t vs.  State  of\t Haryana<\/a>  1986\t(3)  SCR  785\t and
\nShankarsan Dash\t vs. Union  of India<\/a> 1991 (2) SCR  567 cited
\nby the learned counsel for the appellants are  of no help as
\nthe point involved in those cases was  altogether different.\n<\/p>\n
     In Hoshiar\t Singh vs.  State of Haryana<\/a> 1993 (4) Suppl.
\nSCC 377,  a requisition\t was sent  to select  candidates for
\nappointment  on\t  6  posts   of\t Inspectors   of  Police  by
\nadvertisement dated  January  22,  1988.  Applications\twere
\ninvited for  the said  6 posts.\t Subsequent to\tthe  written
\nexamination but\t prior to  the physical test and interview a
\nrevised request\t for  8\t more  posts  was  sent.  The  Board
\nrecommended 19\tnames out  of which  18 persons\t were  given
\nappointments. Those  appointments were challenged before the
\nPunjab\tand   Haryana  High  Court  and\t it  was  held\tthat
\nappointments beyond  8 posts  were illegal.  On appeal\tthis
\nCourt held that since requisition was for 8 posts, the Board
\nwas required  to send  its recommendation  for 8 posts only.
\nThis  Court   further  observed:   The\tappointment  on\t the
\nadditional  posts   on\tthe  basis  of\tsuch  selection\t and
\nrecommendation\twould\tdeprive\t candidates   who  were\t not
\neligible for  appointment to  the posts on the last date for
\nsubmission of  applications mentioned  in the  advertisement
\nand who\t became eligible  for appointment thereafter, of the
\nopportunity of\tbeing  considered  for\tappointment  on\t the
\nadditional posts  because if  the said\tadditional posts are
\nadvertised  subsequently   those  who  become  eligible\t for
\nappointment would  be entitled\tto apply  for the  same. The
\nHigh  Court  was,  therefore,  right  in  holding  that\t the
\nselection of  19  persons  by  the  Board  even\t though\t the
\nrequisition  was   for\t8   posts  only,   was\tnot  legally
\nsustainable”.\n<\/p>\n
     In the case of State of Bihar vs. Secretariat Assistant
\nSuccessful Examinees Union<\/a> 1986 and Others 1994 (1) SCC 126,
\nthe Bihar  State Subordinate  Services Selection  Board\t had
\nissued\tan   advertisement  in\t the  year   1985   inviting
\napplications for the posts of Assistants falling vacant upto
\nthe year  1985-86. The\tnumber of vacancies as Then existing
\nwas announced on August 25,1987, the examination was held in
\nNovember 1987  and the\tresult was  published only  in\tJuly
\n1990. Immediately  thereafter out  of successful  candidates
\n309  candidates\t  were\tgiven\tappointments  and  the\trest
\nempanelled  and\t  made\tto   wait  for\trelease\t of  further
\nvacancies. Since  the vacancies available uptil December 31,
\n1988 were  not disclosed  or communicated  to the  Board  no
\nfurther\t appointment   could   be   made.   The\t  empanelled
\ncandidates, after  making an  unsuccessful representation to
\nthe State  Government approached  the Patna High Court which
\ndirected them  to be appointed in vacancies available on the
\ndate of\t publication of\t the result as well as the vacancies
\nwhich had  arisen upto 1991. The State appealed against that
\ndecision and this Court held that the direction given by the
\nHigh  Court   for  appointment\t of  empanelled\t  candidates
\naccording to  the merit list against the vacancies till 1991
\nwas not\t proper and  cannot be sustained. This Court further
\nobserved that  since no\t examination  was  held\t since\t1987
\npersons who became eligible to compete for appointments were
\ndenied the  opportunity to  take  the  examination  and\t the
\ndirection of  the High Court would prejudicially affect them
\nfor not\t fault of  theirs. However, keeping in view the fact
\nsituation of  the case\tthis Court  upheld the\tappointments
\nmade on\t the posts  falling vacant upto 1988 and quashed the
\njudgment of  the High Court which directed the filling up of
\nthe vacancies of 1989, 1990 and 1991 from out of the list of
\nthe candidates\twho had\t appeared in the examination held in
\n1987.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  case of  Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’
\nAssociation vs.\t State cf  Gujarat 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 the
\nfollowing question  arose  for\tconsideration:\t“What  is  a
\nwaiting list?;\tcan it be treated as a source of recruitment
\nfrom which  candidates may  be drawn as and when necessary”;
\nand lastly  how long  can it  operate?” Though this question
\nwas examined  in the  context of Executive Engineers (Civil)
\nGujarat Service of Engineers Class I Recruitment Rules, 1979
\nthe following observations made by this Court are of general
\napplication. Therein this Court has observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “How\ta  waiting  list  should
\n     operate and  what is its nature may
\n     be Governed  by the  rules. Usually
\n     it is  linked with the selection or
\n     examination   for\t which\t it   is
\n     prepared.\tFor   instance,\t if   an
\n     examination   is\theld   say   for
\n     selecting 10  candidates  for  1990
\n     and   the\t  competent    authority
\n     prepares a\t waiting list then it is
\n     in respect\t of those  10 seats only
\n     for which\tselection or competition
\n     was held.\tSuch lists  are prepared
\n     either  under  the\t rules\tor  even
\n     otherwise mainly to ensure that the
\n     working  in  the  office  does  not
\n     suffer if\tthe selected  candidates
\n     do not  join for  one or  the other
\n     reason or\tthe  next  selection  or
\n     examination  is   not  held   soon.
\n     Therefore,\t  once\t  the\tselected
\n     candidates\t join\tand  no\t vacancy
\n     arises due\t to resignation\t etc. or
\n     for any  other  reason  within  the
\n     period the list is to operate under
\n     the  rules\t  or  within  reasonable
\n     period where  no specific period is
\n     provided then  candidate  from  the
\n     waiting list  has no right to claim
\n     appointment to  any future\t vacancy
\n     which   may    arise   unless   the
\n     selection was held for it.
\n     The  following   observations  made
\n     therein are also relevant:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “Appointment\t   in\t  future
\n     vacancies\t from\t waiting    list
\n     prepared by  the Commission  should
\n     be an  exception  rather  than  the
\n     rule. It  has  many  ramifications.
\n     There was\tno contingency\tnor  the
\n     State  Government\t had  taken  any
\n     decision to fill the vacancies from
\n     the waiting  list\tas  it\twas  not
\n     possible  for   it\t to   hold   the
\n     examination   nor\t  any\temergent
\n     situation\thad  arisen  except  the
\n     claim of  some  of\t the  candidates
\n     from the  waiting\tlist  that  they
\n     should  be\t given\tappointment  for
\n     vacancies which  arose between 1380
\n     and 1983\t and  between  1983  and
\n     1993. The\tdirection  of  the  High
\n     Court, therefore,\tto  appoint  the
\n     candidates from the waiting list in
\n     the Vacancies  which, according  to
\n     its calculation,  arose between the
\n     years 1980 to 1983 and between 1983
\n     to 1993 cannot be upheld.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
However, on  equitable considerations this Court did not set
\naside appointments of those candidates who were appointed in
\npursuance of  the  decision  of\t the  High  Court  but\tgave
\nappropriate directions for securing ends of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     In State  of Bihar Vs. Madan Mohan Singh (1994 Supp (3)
\nSCC 308)  this Court  held that\t the advertisement  and\t the
\nwhole selection\t process were  meant only  for 32 vacancies.
\nThe process  came to  an end as soon as these vacancies were
\nfilled up.  If the  same list  has to  be kept alive for the
\npurpose of filling up of other vacancies, it would amount to
\ndeprivation of\trights of  other candidates  who would\thave
\nbecome eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and the
\nselection process.\n<\/p>\n
     In State of Bihar vs. Madan Mohan Singh and others<\/a> 1994
\nSupp (3)  SCC 308  this Court  has in terms held that if the
\nadvertisement and  the\tconsequent  selection  process\twere
\nmeant only  to fill  up certain number of vacancies then the
\nmeant list  will hold  good for\t the purpose  of filling  up
\nthose notified\tvacancies and  no further.  In that  case 32
\nvacancies  were\t  advertised  but   a  select  list  of\t 129
\ncandidates was\tprepared.  A  question\tarose  whether\tmore
\ncandidates could  be appointed\ton the\tbasis  of  the\tsaid
\nselect list. This Court held that once the 32 vacancies were
\nfilled up  the process\tof selection  for those 32 vacancies
\ngot exhausted  and came\t to an end. It was further held that
\nif the\tsame list  has to be kept subsisting for the purpose
\nof filling  up other  vacancies also  that  would  naturally
\namount to  deprivation of  rights of  other  candidates\t who
\nwould  have   become  eligible\t subsequent  to\t  the\tsaid
\nadvertisement and selection process.\n<\/p>\n
     One of  the questions  which fell\tfor consideration in
\nMadan Lal and others vs. State of J & K 1995 (3) SCC 486 was
\nwhether preparation  of meant  list of 20 candidates was bad
\nas the\tvacancies for  which the advertisement was issued by
\nthe Commission\twere only  11 and  the requisition  that was
\nsent by\t the Government\t for selection was also for those 11
\nvacancies. This\t Court held  that the  said  action  of\t the
\nCommission by  itself was  not bad but at the time of giving
\nactual appointments  the meant\tlist had  to be\t so operated
\nthat only  11 vacancies\t were filled up. The reason given by
\nthis Court  was that as the requisition was for 11 vacancies
\nthe consequent\tadvertisement and  recruitment could also be
\nfor 11\tvacancies and  no more. This Court further observed:
\n“It is\teasy to\t visualize that\t if requisition\t is  for  11
\nvacancies and  that results in the initiation of recruitment
\nprocess by  way of  advertisement, whether the advertisement
\nmention filling\t up of\t11 vacancies or not, the prospective
\ncandidates can\teasily find  out  from\tthe  Office  of\t the
\nCommission that the requisition for the proposes recruitment
\nis for\tfilling up  11 vacancies.  In such  a case  a  given
\ncandidate may not like to compete for diverse reasons but if
\nrequisition is\tfor larger  number of  vacancies  for  which
\nrecruitment  is\t  initiated,  he   may\tlike   to   compete.
\nConsequently the  actual appointment to the posts have to be
\nconfined to the posts of recruitment to which requisition is
\nsent by\t the Government.  In such an eventuality, candidates
\nexcess of  11 who  are lower  in merit list of candidate can
\nonly be\t treated as wait-listed candidates in order of merit
\nto fill only the 11 vacancies for which recruitment has been
\nmade, in the event of any high candidate not being available
\nto fill\t the 11\t vacancies  for\t any  reason.  Once  the  11
\nvacancies are  filled by  candidates taken in order of merit
\nfrom the  select list  that list  will get exhausted, having
\nserved its purpose”. It may also be stated that while making
\nthe  aforesaid\tobservations  this  Court  agreed  with\t the
\ncontention that\t while sending a requisition for recruitment
\nto posts  the Government  can keep  in view  not only actual
\nvacancies than existing but Also anticipated vacancies.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  above discussion\t of the\t case law it becomes
\nclear that  the selection  process by way of requisition and
\nadvertisement can  by started  for clear  vacancies and also
\nfor anticipated\t vacancies but\tnot for\t future vacancies If
\nthe requisition\t and advertisement are for certain number of
\nposts only  the State cannot make more appointments than the
\nnumber of  posts  advertised,  even  though  it\t might\thave
\nprepared a  select list\t of more  candidates. The  State can
\ndeviate from  the advertisement\t and  make  appointments  on
\nposts falling vacant thereafter in exceptional circumstances
\nonly or\t in an\temergent situation  and that too by taking a
\npolicy decision in that behalf. Even when filling up of more
\nposts than advertised is challenged the Court may not, while
\nexercising its\textra-ordinary jurisdiction,  invalidate the
\nexcess appointments  and may  mould the\t relief\t in  such  a
\nmanner as  to strike  a just balance between the interest of
\nthe  State  and\t the  interest\tof  persons  seeking  public
\nemployment. What  relief should\t be granted  in\t such  cases
\nwould depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.\n<\/p>\n
     In the present case, as against the 62 advertised posts
\nthe Board  made appointments  on 138  posts.  The  selection
\nprocess was  started for 62 clear vacancies and at that time
\nanticipated  vacancies\t were  not   taken   into   account.
\nTherefore, strictly speaking, the Board was not justified in
\nmaking\tmore   than  62\t  appointments\t pursuant   to\t the
\nadvertisement  published  on  2.11.1991\t and  the  selection
\nprocess which  followed thereafter.  But as  the Board could
\nhave taken  into account  not only  the actual vacancies but
\nalso  vacancies\t which\twere  likely  to  arise\t because  of
\nretirement etc.\t by  the  time\tthe  selection\tprocess\t was
\ncompleted it  would not\t be just and equitable to invalidate
\nall the appointments made on posts in excess of 62. However,
\nthe appointments  which were made against future vacancies –
\nin this\t case on  posts which  were newly  created – must be
\nregarded as  invalid. As stated earlier, after the selection
\nprocess had  started 13\t posts had  become vacant because of
\nretirement and\t12 because  of deaths.\tThe vacancies  which
\nwere likely  to arise  as a  result of retirement could have
\nbeen reasonably\t anticipated by the Board. The Board through
\noversight had  not taken  them into  consideration  while  a
\nrequisition was\t made for  filling up  62 posts.  Even\twith
\nrespect to  the appointments  made against  vacancies  which
\narose because  of deaths, a lenient view can be taken and on
\nconsideration of  expediency and  equity they  need  not  be
\nquashed.  Therefore,  in  view\tof  the\t special  facts\t and
\ncircumstances of  this case  we do  not think  it proper  to
\ninvalidate the\tappointments made  on  those  25  additional
\nposts. But  the appointments  made by  the  Board  on  posts
\nbeyond 87  are held invalid. Though the High Court was right
\nin the\tview It\t has taken.  we\t modify\t its  order  to\t the
\naforesaid extent.  These appeals are allowed accordingly. No
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (4) 319, JT 1996 (5) 219 Author: N G.T. Bench: Nanavati G.T. (J) PETITIONER: PREM SINGH AND OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/05\/1996 BENCH: NANAVATI G.T. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-191511","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPrem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-10T00:47:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T00:47:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\"},\"wordCount\":4745,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\",\"name\":\"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-10T00:47:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-10T00:47:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996","datePublished":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T00:47:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996"},"wordCount":4745,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996","name":"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board ... on 7 May, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-05-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-10T00:47:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prem-singh-and-others-vs-haryana-state-electricity-board-on-7-may-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prem Singh And Others vs Haryana State Electricity Board … on 7 May, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191511","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=191511"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/191511\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=191511"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=191511"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=191511"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}