Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhupender Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors. on 30 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: (2005)141PLR268
Author: S.S. Nijjar
Bench: S.S. Nijjar, M.M. Aggarwal
JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.
2. Mr. Malik submits that 67% of the posts of Assistant Food and Supplies Officers are to be filled up by promotion. 33% posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. The cadre strength of Assistant Food and Supplies Officers is 83. Share of direct recruit comes to 27 posts, whereas 56 posts are to be filled up by promotion. The quota of promotees has already been filled up. 14 candidates have been appointed by direct recruitment on regular basis. Thus 13 posts are lying vacant which are meant for direct recruits. An advertisement was issued on 6.7.2003 advertising 10 posts of A.F.S.O. The petitioner appeared in the written test and has been declared successful. On 16.12.2004, interviews were held. However, the result could not be declared as the Election Model Code of Conduct had come into effect. After the elections were over, on 7.3.2005, a general order has been issued by the Haryana Government in which it has been decided that the requisitions sent to Haryana Public Service Commission/Haryana Staff Selection Commission for filling up various categories of posts may be withdrawn. Consequently, the Haryana Staff Selection Commission has not declared the results. According to the learned counsel, the action of the respondents is arbitrary. It violates Rule 9(1)(c) of the Haryana Food and Supplies Department Sub-Offices (Group-C) Service Rules, 1982. According to Mr. Malik, the petitioner is not only entitled to the declaration of the result, but is also entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner, on the basis of the result which has wrongly not been declared by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. In support of the submission, learned counsel relies on a number of judgments which are as under:-
(1) Nanjundaswany N. and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Anr., 1980(1) S.L.R. 836. (2) D.J. Warkari v. K.V. Karanjkar, 1980(1) S.L.R. 839.
(3) Amarjit Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana, 1984(3) S.L.R. 414. (4) Madan Singh, Ex.Constable 10th Battalion B.S.F. v. Union of India and Ors., 1984(3) S.L.R. 424. (5) Baldev Singh and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors., R.S.J. (1950-1988) 248. (6) Girish Arora and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., 1998(1) R.S.J. 613. (7) Rikhi Ram Jaswal v. Union of India and Ors., 1998(1) R.S.J. 644.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case. It is not disputed that although the written test and the interviews have been held, but the result has not been declared. It is a settled proposition of law that even selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed on the post for which a selection has been made. The aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, 1973(2) S.L.R. 137, Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, , State of Kerala v. A. Lakshmikutty, (1986)4 S.C.C. 632 and Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, 1991(3) R.S.J. 136. In the case of Shankarsan Dash (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the State is not under a legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. Even if vacancies exist, it is open to the appointing authority to decide as to how many appointments are to be made. As at present, the petitioner cannot even claim to be a selected candidate. Before the result could be declared, the requisition which has been sent to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, has been withdrawn. No material has been placed on record by the petitioner to show that the action taken by the State of Haryana is actuated by malice. The order dated 7.3.2005 merely states that earlier various departments of the Government have sent the requisitions to the Haryana Public Service Commission and Haryana Staff Selection Commission to make the candidates available to fill up the posts of various categories in their departments/organisations. It further states that now the government have decided that the requisitions sent to Haryana Public Service Commission/Haryana Staff Selection Commission for filling up various categories of posts, may be withdrawn. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the requisitions have been withdrawn either arbitrarily or without any reason. It was for the petitioner to lay the foundation, in support of the claim that the respondents have acted arbitrarily. Merely because 13 posts are lying vacant, would not lead to the conclusion that the respondents are acting arbitrarily.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.