Similarly, in Balwant Singh Narwal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 728, the selected candidates could not join because of the stay order and then adverse decisions. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions and upheld the selection and appointment and consequently the said selectee joined, albeit after considerable delay. Thereafter, question arose whether these selectees would retain their seniority viz. those who had joined in the interregnum when the litigation was pending. Contra contention was that the selection is recommendatory, and therefore, seniority should be counted from the date of actual appointment. Accepting that this was the general principle, the Supreme Court did not apply this precept for the selectees therein could not join on account of litigation and those who had been appointed in the interregnum were selected against subsequent vacancies. Relying on Surendra Narain Singh vs. State of Bihar (1998) 5 SCC 246, the dispute was decided, upholding the seniority of the candidates who could not earlier join in view of the stay order and adverse decisions. In Surendra Narain (Supra), the Supreme Court had upheld seniority of the candidates who were selected against the earlier vacancies but could not be appointed in the same batch due to technical difficulty. In Balwant Singh (Supra), the seniority was given, notwithstanding the fact that selectees had joined and were appointed subsequently.
