Mohan Lal vs State of J and K

T.S. Doabia, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved against the action of respondents whereby he has not been given job in pursuance of the select list

prepared by the respondent No. 2.

The facts in brief are, as under :

An advertisement notice was issued. It was issued in March 1992. The posts of Lecturer in ENT in Medical Education Department were

advertised. The petitioner applied for the same. He represented that he is member of Schedule caste category and is entitled to the said post on the

basis of roaster of reservation. It is the case of the petitioner that he was placed at S.No. 3. Respondent No. 3 did not abide by the

recommendation made by the Public Service Commission and he was not given appointment. He preferred writ petition No. 241/1993. Later on,

another notification came to be issued by the Commission. This was on 27.4.1994. This, as per the petitioner, gave him a cause of action to

challenge that Notification also. This Notification is subject matter of challenge in this present petition. The petitioner submits :

i) That he having been placed at Serial No. 3 in the earlier selection was entitled to appointment;

ii) That a second Notification with regard an earlier vacancy could not be issued;

iii) That even though he has no vested right to get a letter of appointment in his favour, but if he has to be denied the appointment then State has to

act reasonably and some reason should exist for denial of the appointment.

It is seen that the writ petition is pending in this Court since September, 1994. The Respondents have not filed any objections.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submits that petitioner has earlier filed writ petition No. 241/1993 which was

dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondents placed explicit reliance on the last para of the judgment given in SWP No. 241/1993 which is as

under :

The petitioner by applying for the posts in the open/generally category is estopped from claiming appointment under scheduled caste category,

because it offends the right of private respondents who were selected under general category because of their superior merit. The only course open

to the petitioner is to wait for the next vacancy and seek appropriate remedy at proper time before it is too late as in this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the above observations should not stand in his way because the issue in the present case is as

to whether a later Notification could be issued when the petitioner's name already stood recommended at Serial No. 3 of the select list and this

vacancy is available for a schedule caste category candidate. He also submits that the Government had notified three vacancies in this category.

There can be no dispute with the proposition that a person has no right to ask the Government that he must be given appointment merely because

he has been selected. Mere selection does not confer any vested right on a person for appointment. But at the same in case reported as R.S. Mittal

v. Union of India, 1995(3) SCT 284 the Supreme Court of India has observed that the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel without

there being any valid cause. What has been said in para 12 is quoted below :

It is no doubt correct, that a person on the selectpanel has no vested right to be appointed to the post for which he has been selected. But has a

right to be considered for appointment. But at the same time, the appointing authority cannot ignore the select panel or decline to make the

appointment on its whims. When a person has been selected by the Selection Board and there is a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping

in view his merit position then ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for appointment. There has to be a justifiable reason to decline to

appoint a person who is on the select panel. In the present case there has been a mere inaction on the part of the Government. No reason

whatsoever, not to talk of a justifiable reason, was given as to why the appointments were not offered to the candidates expeditiously and in

accordance with law. The appointment should have been offered to Mr. Murgod within a reasonable time of availability of the vacancy and

thereafter to the next candidate. The Central Government's approach in this case was wholly unjustified.

The above observations of the Supreme Court would help the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned observations made by the Supreme

Court, the State was under an obligation to justify its action by indicating as to why it is not sticking to the select panel in question. The requisite

averments that three vacancies were notified and that the third vacancy was for the quota which was meant for reserved category is not denied.

As indicated above, there is no reply to the same. This petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent would consider the claim of the petitioner

for appointment in terms of the recommendations made by the Public Service Commission. Let a decision be taken in this regard and conveyed to

the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is made available by the petitioner to the respondentauthorities.

Disposed of accordingly.

Petitioner allowed.