Ram Kumar Singh vs Sate of M.R. and Others

Rajendra Menon, J.

Petitioner feels aggrieved by action of the respondents in not appointing him as Constable even after included his name in the select list at sl. no. 21 out of 22 candidates prepared by the select committee vide Annexure R/1. Case of the petitioner is that in response to an advertisement in the year 1987 for filling up 22 posts of Constable in the general category, petitioner appeared and duly selected, he underwent medical examination but order of appointment have not been issued in his favour. It is stated that once the advertisement was issued for selection against 22 posts and he was duly selected there was no reason for not issuing the orders of appointment in his case. The petitioner further alleged that even though various other posts were vacant, the case of the petitioner was not considered. Accordingly, alleging arbitrariness and discrimination in the matter of appointment, petitioner seeks writ of Mandamus from this court directing the respondents to issue order of appointment to him to join the duties.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was only empanelled. Mere empanelment does not confer right of appointment. Admittedly no person less meritorious than the petitioner down below the merit list has been appointed. Respondents even though had advertised 22 posts at the time of conducting the recruitment and permitting employees to join the duties found that only 17 posts were available and accordingly issued the appointment orders in case of persons in order of merit from sl. no. 1 to 17 of the select list, Annexure R/1. The petitioner who was placed at sl. no. 21 had obtained 130 marks and the last person appointed at sl. no. 17 got 132 marks. Apart from the petitioner, candidates who had obtained marks 132 have not been appointed. Along with petitioner, two more candidates above him at sl. no. 19 and 20 have obtained 130 marks and they have not been appointed. That being so, merely on the ground that 22 posts were advertised, relief as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted as it is for the competent authority to decide as to how many posts are to be filled up at a relevant time and if the respondents choose to fill up certain number of posts, this Court cannot compel the respondents to fill up all the posts. That apart the life of the select list has since been expired in the year 1989 much before the date of filing of the petition.