Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mansi Kaul vs Union Of India And Others on 16 December, 2009
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Jora Singh
C.W.P.No.19346 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.19346 of 2009
Date of Decision : 16.12.2009
Mansi Kaul ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh on 2.9.2009, whereby an Original Application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, was dismissed.
The respondent-Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (for short 'the PGI'), initially advertised one regular post of Telephone Operator vide communication dated 21.6.2005 (Annexure P1). One Sukhwinder Singh was recommended for the post of Telephone Operator, whereas the petitioner was the first candidate in the wait list panel. Sukhwinder Singh joined as Telephone Operator in pursuance of such selection, whereas the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis vide letter dated 15.2.2007. Such ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time for a period of 89 days each time.
Subsequently, another advertisement was published for filling up of two posts of Telephone Operators. The petitioner appeared in the written examination and interview. The petitioner was selected as second C.W.P.No.19346 of 2009 2 candidate, the first being Ambika Rathaur. However, before the petitioner could be appointed, the recruitment process was cancelled. Aggrieved against the cancellation of the recruitment process, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the order impugned in the writ petition has dismissed the same. The Tribunal found that the Institute has taken a policy decision that the posts of Telephone Operators will be filled up by outsourcing in future. Therefore, it was found that the petitioner has no right or enforceable claim on the post of Telephone Operator. As and when the respondents initiate the selection process to fill up the posts of Telephone Operators through direct recruitment, the petitioner can compete for the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that once the selection process has started in which the petitioner was found to be meritorious, the decision of the PGI to abort the selection process and to outsource the same is arbitrary. It is contended that since the post is available, the respondents are bound to complete the selection process initiated in the year 2008. It is also contended that the petitioner has continued to work on ad hoc basis since the year 2007, therefore, the petitioner has a right to continue on the post of Telephone Operator. The petitioner also relies upon a judgment of this Court reported as Meenakshi Uppal Vs. Society for Promotion of Information Technology Chandigarh (SPIC) and others 2005(4) RSJ 498.
We do not find any merit in the present writ petition. In the selection process initiated in the year 2005, the petitioner was a wait list candidate. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis being a wait list C.W.P.No.19346 of 2009 3 candidate. The selected candidate Sukhwinder Singh has joined in substantive capacity against the sole post advertised.
The subsequent selection advertised in the year 2008 has been cancelled before any appointment could be made. It is for the employer to decide as to when the post is to be filled up. Mere participation in the selection process and being meritorious does not confer any right of appointment. Reference may be made to State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha, AIR 1973 SC 2216, wherein it has been held that mere selection does not give any enforceable right to seek appointment on the post. Mere fact that the post is available does not confer any right on the petitioner to seek appointment on substantive basis, when it has been decided by the employer not to fill up the post by direct recruitment but to outsource the services.
The judgment of this Court in Meenakshi Uppal's case (supra) is not helpful to the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the aforesaid case, the post against which the petitioner was selected was filled up by another candidate. Present is not such a case i.e. filling up of a post by another candidate.
In view of the above, we do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, which may warrant any interference in the present writ petition.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
16.12.2009 (JORA SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE