Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 3 July, 1998
Equivalent citations: (1998)120PLR218
Author: B. Rai
Bench: B. Rai
JUDGMENT G.S. Singhvi, J.
1. Whether the government is bound to make appointment on all the advertised posts? This is the only question which needs adjudication in the petition filed by Shri Baljit Singh for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
2. The petitioner has averred that he applied for appointment as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in response to the advertisement Annexure P-1, dated 24.4.1997 issued by the Government of Haryana for the purpose of recruitment on 12 posts of Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. He has further averred that the selection committee headed by the President, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission interviewed him but without any rhyme or reason the respondent No. 1 has failed to appoint him in spite of the fact that one post has remained unfilled.
3. Shri S.P. Singh invited our attention to the order Annexure P14, dated 18.11.1997 issued in the name of the Governor of Haryana under Section 9(a) read with Section 10(i)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and argued that the decision of the respondents not to offer appointment to the petitioner is wholly arbitrary, capricious and unjustified. Shri Singh submitted that having advertised 12 posts, the respondents are duty bound to appoint atleast 12 candidates and as the petitioner has been found eligible for selection, he is entitled to be appointed as of right.
4. In our opinion, the aforementioned contention of the learned counsel is wholly untenable and the petitioner cannot be granted relief by issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is a well settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate for appointment on a public post cannot be confused with his/her suitability.The selection committee is not under a statutory obligation to make recommendation for appointment against all the advertised posts. If in a given case the committee finds that none of the candidate interviewed by it is suitable, the selection committee can decline to recommend even a single person and the candidate cannot, only on that ground, complaint of arbitrariness or mala fides.
5. The non-inclusion of petitioner's name in the list of selection candidates who have been appointed vide order dated 18.11.1997 is clearly indicative of the fact that he has not been found suitable by the selection committee. Therefore, it cannot be held that the recommendations made by the selection committee are vitiated due to arbitrariness or mala fides.
6. We are also of the opinion that none of the petitioner's legal or fundamental rights has been violated due to his non-selection and as such, no writ can be issued directing the respondents to appoint him as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.