State
of Punjab Vs. Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr
[2001] Insc 568 (30
October 2001)
S. Rajendra
Babu & Doraiswamy Raju Raju, J.
This
appeal by the State of Punjab has been filed against the Order dated 24.1.94 of
a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the order
of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, allowing CWP No.13347 of 1989
filed by the first respondent herein and as a consequence thereof, directing
the appellant-State to appoint him as the Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
The
indisputable and relevant facts, necessary to be noticed for an appreciation of
claims of the parties, are that the State of Punjab by a Notification issued in
August, 1987 invited applications from amongst practising advocates of Punjab
and Haryana High Court and Law Officers of Government of Punjab for a post of
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, in the scale of Rs.2000-2300; that from
amongst the applicants, who responded, a select panel of three candidates was
made by the Committee, which interviewed them in which one M.L. Agnihotri was
arrayed as No.1, one Baldev Singh as No.2 and the first respondent as No.3. The
first in the panel, M.L. Agnihotri accepted the same and on being appointed, he
joined the service also on 16.10.1987, but subsequently resigned on 13.11.1987.
The second candidate, Baldev Singh, on the select panel also on his own, by his
letter dated 13.1.1988 expressed that he was not interested and even if offered
his inability to accept the appointment.
Thereupon,
the State took a decision to fill up the post from the service cadre by
promotion and that is how the second respondent, who was serving in the Office
of Advocate General, was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit appointed and he
also retired on 31.7.1988. The grievance of the first respondent as writ
petitioner was that he being the third candidate in the select panel, should
have been offered the appointment and not the second respondent. Though
representations had been made by the first respondent asserting such a claim,
the same were considered and rejected. It was at that stage the first
respondent approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge was of the
view that after the candidate at Serial No.2 in the select panel declined to
accept the appointment, the first respondent should have been offered the same
and relying upon an administrative Circular issued by the State Government on
23.3.1957, the learned Single Judge allowed the claim, as noticed earlier. The
challenge made by the State in appeal before a Division Bench having failed,
this appeal has been filed.
Heard
the learned counsel appearing on either side. Strong reliance has been placed
by the appellant on some decisions of this Court, wherein it has been held that
mere empanelment in a select list does not confer upon such a person in the
panel any right to get appointed to a post under the State and if for good and
valid reason, the State does not choose to appoint the said person in the
panel, no right inheres in such a person to seek a mandate from the Courts for
an appointment. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent placed
strong reliance upon a decision of this Court, to which one of us State of Haryana
& Anr. [AIR 1999 SC 1701], wherein it was held relying upon the Circular
Orders dated 22.3.1957 that when vacancies existing were filled in by
appointing candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission, further
vacancies arising and available within six months from the receipt of
recommendation of Public Service Commission have to be filled up out of the
wait list maintained by the Public Service Commission.
We
have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either
side. In our view, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge as well as
the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court cannot be sustained. As rightly contended for the appellant-State,
the Notification issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and
the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but on his
acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he
came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post
in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel
prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any
rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have
been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the
subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other
vacancies arising subsequently. The Circular Orders dated 22.3.1957, in our
view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and
not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the Circular
Orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can
be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We
find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before Courts, leave
alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get
appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed
by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as
well as administrative exigencies.
For
all the reasons stated above, we are unable to approve the judgment under
appeal. The appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed by the first respondent
in the High Court will stand dismissed. No costs.
J.
[S. Rajendra
Babu] J.
[Doraiswamy
Raju] October 30, 2001.
Back