IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.16605 of 1999
Date of decision: 11.2.2009
Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others
-----Petitioners
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
--Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. RK Malik, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Vikas Malik and Mandeep Kaushik,
Advocates.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG.Haryana for the
State.
Adarsh Kumar Goel,J.
1. This petition has been filed for a direction to give
appointment letters to the petitioners on the basis of their
selection on 22.5.1999 to the posts of Patwaris.
2. Case of the petitioners is that on 7.9.1997, an
advertisement was issued for filling up 1055 posts of Patwaris
CWP No.16605 of 1999 2
by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Written test was
held on 29.11.1998, which was followed by interview between
8.4.1999 to 20.4.1999. Result was announced on 22.5.1999.
1055 candidates were selected. 288 candidates have joined as
petitioners in this petition. It is stated that there are other
petitions also by some of the candidates. After selection, the
petitioners were not given appointments. The petitioners
served a legal notice dated 18.10.1999 but no reply was
received. The present petition was filed in this Court in
November 1999.
3. Contention raised in the petition is that the
petitioners having been duly selected, have acquired a right to
appointment.
4. In the written statement filed by the State, the
petition has been opposed by submitting that no right of
appointment accrues merely on selection. Due to increased
expenditure liability on account of pay revision and other
factors, there was rise in fiscal deficit of the State and the
Government had taken a decision not to offer appointments to
selected candidates.
CWP No.16605 of 1999 3
5. In a further affidavit filed on 23.8.2001, it is stated
that 1248 posts of Patwaris were advertised earlier and there
was stay against appointments beyond 1248 advertised posts.
6. When a bunch of petitions came up for hearing
earlier on August 2, 2005, the same were dismissed. Earlier,
vide order dated 23.5.2000, the present writ petition was
allowed on the ground of reasonable expectation of selected
candidates to get appointment and a direction was issued to
depute the petitioners for training in batches. However, on
appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated
9.2.2001 in Civil Appeal No.1197 of 2001 (State of Haryana
and others v. Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others), set aside
the order of this Court and remanded the matter for a fresh
decision. Thereafter, the writ petitiosn were dismissed on
2.8.2005. It was, however, made clear that candidates who had
appeared, will be entitled to appear in fresh selection subject to
eligibility and the Government will relax the condition of
eligibility with regard to age. Against the said judgment, the
petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and their
appeal was heard with the appeal of candidates selected on
earlier occasion, which selections were quashed. The Hon’ble
CWP No.16605 of 1999 4
Supreme Court set aside judgment of the High Court and
remanded the matter without any discussion on the case of the
present petitioners. The matter of other set of candidates
selected in selections held in the year 1992 has been disposed
of by a separate judgment today in CWP No.11526 of 1994
(Rajpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others).
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners having been duly selected, were entitled to be
appointed. Reliance has been placed on judgment dated
7.2.2007 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punajb
and others v. Harcharan Singh and others, Civil Appeal
No.3521 of 2006, judgment of this Court dated 31.1.2007 in
Davender Kumar and others v. State and others, CWP
No.16376 of 1999, wherein direction for appointment of
Panchayat Secretaries was issued and judgment of Allahabad
High Court in State of UP and another v. Rakesh Kumar,
2004(1) SCT 34.
9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the
State had financial difficulty in appointing the petitioners but it
has no objection to eligibility of the selected candidates being
CWP No.16605 of 1999 5
relaxed with regard to the age in the fresh selections as and
when held.
10. The question whether mere selection confers a right
to be appointed, is well settled. Mere selection does not confer
any right of appointment. Reference may be made to the law
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP v.
Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330, wherein it was
observed:-
“14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment
as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate’s
name in the list does not confer any right to be
selected, even if some of the vacancies remained
unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim
that they have been given a hostile discrimination.
(See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India AIR 1991
SC 1612; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K (1993) 2 SCC
573; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal AIR 1996 SC
2340; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India (1996)10
SCC 742; Bihar Public Service Commission v.
State of Bihar (1997) 3 SCC 198: AIR 1997 SC
2280; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul AIR 1997
SC 3091, Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad
v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra (1997) 10 SCC 264;
Punjab SEB v. Seema 1999 SCC (L&S) 629; All
India SC & ST Employees’ Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen
AIR 2001 SC 1851; Vinodan T. v. University of
CWP No.16605 of 1999 6Calicut (2002) 4 SCC 726; S. Renuka v. State of
A.P. AIR 2002 SC 1523 and Batiarani Gramiya
Bank v. Pallab Kumar AIR 2003 SC 4248.)”
11. No doubt, no public authority can act arbitrarily and
every decision has to be fair and reasonable, Mere change of
Government may not by itself be a valid ground to with-hold
appointments of selected candidates, who may have been
lawfully selected.
12. The question is whether a mandamus ban be issued
at this stage for appointing the petitioners.
13. We are of the view that having regard to long time
which has elapsed since the selection of the petitioners i.e.
about 10 years and the settled law that the petitioners do not
have any indefeasible right to appointment merely on the basis
of selection, no case is made out for issuance of mandamus for
appointment of the petitioners. The judgments relied upon
being on individual facts are distinguishable. However, the
petitioners having been once selected and having regard to the
stand taken by the learned counsel for the State, we direct that
the petitioners be given relaxation in eligibility as and when
fresh selections for the said posts are made.
CWP No.16605 of 1999 7
14. The petition is disposed of.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
February 11, 2009 (Jitendra Chauhan)
'gs' Judge