Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Out of 90 candidates whose names were recommended for consideration by different Heads of Departments the State Government, after taking into consideration their inter se merit, suitability and eligibility, recommended the names of 75 candidates to the HPSC for selection. While the HPSC was in the process of selecting candidates on the basis of their past record and the interviews, it appears that pursuant to an undertaking given by the Advocate-General of Haryana at the hearing of C.W.P No. 1201 of 1991 to send the eligible candidates from the education and local self-departments of the State Government, the cases of eligible candidates from these two departments had to be considered and forwarded to the HPSC to enable it to complete the selection process. However, before this could be done the scenario on the political front underwent a change. A new Government headed by Shri Bhajan Lal came to power, It decided to review the decision of the earlier Government in regard to special recruitment and, therefore, the names of candidates from the education and local self-departments were not forwarded to the HPSC. The petitioners contend that even though the selection process was at an advanced stage and only the names of candidates from the aforesaid two departments were required to be forwarded the entire process was scuttled by the State Government's refusal to forward the names of the candidates belonging to the said two department. They further contend that this exercise was undertaken by the newly formed Government in total disregard of the decision of the High Court rendered on April 2, 1991, in C.W.P. No. 1201 of 1991. It may here be mentioned that the newly formed Government called a meeting of the Council of Ministers to review the decision in regard to special recruitment taken by the earlier Government and decided to withdraw the notifications dated December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991.It was also noticed that there was nothing on Government record to show that the Advocate-General was authorised to give such an undertaking on behalf of the Government. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the administrative department of the State Government decided to withdraw the aforesaid two notifications and the matter was placed before the Council of Ministers for approval as required by the Rules of Business (1977) of the State Government. Thereupon, on December 30, 1991, the following notification was issued:

The Governor of Haryana hereby withdraws Haryana Government, General Administration (Services) Department, Notification No. 41/2/90-SII, dated 20th December, 1990 and No. 41/2/90-SII, dated 25th January, 1991.

Thus, the newly formed Government took a decision to reframe its policy in regard to making of special recruitment in consultation with the HPSC under the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules as is evident from the Agenda of the meeting of Council of Ministers to be held on December 11, 1991. The appellants contend that even the newly formed Government saw the need for special recruitment to meet the exigencies of service but instead of permitting the HPSC to complete the selection process it decided to set at naught the entire process by issuing the notification dated December 30, 1991. The present appellants thereupon filed a Writ Petition, C.W.P. No. 565 of 1992, impugning the decision of the new Government to cancel the notifications dated December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991, by the impugned notification dated December 30, 1991. Notice was issued by the High Court at the preliminary hearing of the writ Petition whereupon the respondents filed a counter explaining the reasons for its subsequent action. The Division Bench of the High Court after taking into consideration the submissions made at the Bar dismissed the Writ Petition on February 7, 1992, by the following order:

(iii) As the HCS (Ex. Branch) service is a premier Class-I service of the State, it is expected that special recruitment should be so made that really competent and experienced officers are recruited.

5. The State Government, therefore, contends that it formulated the new policy to ensure that a more healthy criteria was laid down for the purpose of selection of candidates to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) by way of special recruitment. This was the stage at which the Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court. Thereafter, on March 9, 1992, the State Government in consultation with HPSC issued notification providing for special recruitment for filling up 30 vacancies during 1992. The revised eligibility criteria provided in the said notification requires that the candidate should not be more than 45 years of age, he should have rendered at least seven years continuous service in regular capacity and should have an overall record of 'Very Good' i.e. at least five 'Very Good' or better reports and two of not less than 'Good' category during the last seven years. Conceding that there had been an acute shortage of officers belonging to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) cadre, with a sanctioned strength of 240 only 127 officers being in position and five officers likely to retire during the year, the State Government was anxious to ensure speedy recruitment and with that in view it had formulated a new criteria in consultation with HPSC to enable the latter to complete the selection process at an early date. The various other allegations made by the petitioners in their petition have been formally denied both by the State Government as well as by the HPSC. The State Government contends that the petitioners had no right to be appointed to the posts in question and it was open to the Government, if the circumstances so demanded, to revise the criteria for selection. They, therefore, contend that the High Court was justified in summarily rejecting the Writ Petition as no right of the petitioners had been violated on the State Government withdrawing the earlier notifications by the subsequent notification of December 30, 1991. It is also denied that the subsequent notification was issued to over-reach the decision of the High Court in C.W.P. No. 1201 of 1991 rendered on April 2, 1991.

6. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners while reiterating their objections in regard to the withdrawal of the earlier notifications by the notification of December 30, 1991, the appellants contend that the notification of March 9, 1992, is unsustainable as it is neither just nor fair. On this line of reasoning, they contend that the High Court was in error in dismissing their Writ Petition in limine.

7. It is clear from the above pleadings that in 1990 the State Government resolved to resort to special recruitment to the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) invoking the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules. Pursuant thereto, it issued the notifications dated December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991. The names of the candidates were forwarded by the State Government to the HPSC for selection. The HPSC commenced the selection process and interviewed certain candidates. In the meantime, on account of an undertaking given by the Advocate-General to the High Court at the hearing of C.W.P. No. 1201 of 1991 and allied Writ Petitions, the State Government was required to forward the names of the candidate belonging to two other departments of the State Government. Before it could do so, the new Government came into power and it reviewed the decision of the earlier Government and found the criteria evolved by the earlier Government unacceptable and also noticed certain infirmities in the matter of forwarding the names of eligible candidates. It, therefore, resolved to rescind the earlier notifications of December 20, 1990 and January 25, 1991. It will thus be-seen that at the time when the Writ Petition which has given rise to the present proceedings was filed, the State Government had withdrawn the aforesaid two notifications by the notification dated December 30, 1991. The stage at which the last mentioned notification came to be issued was the stage when the HPSC was still in the process of selecting candidates for appointment by special recruitment. During the pendency of the present proceedings the State Government finalised the criteria for special recruitment by the notification of March 9, 1992. Thus, the HPSC was still in the process of selecting candidates and had yet not completed and finalised the select list nor had it forwarded the same to the State Government for implementation. The candidates, therefore, did not have any right to appointment. There was, therefore, no question of the High Court granting a mandamus or any other writ of the type sought by the appellants. The law in this behalf appears to be well-settled. In the State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and Ors. (1974) SCR 165, this Court held that the mere fact that certain candidates were selected for appointment to vacancies pursuant to an advertisement did not confer any right to be appointed to the post in question to entitle the selectees to a writ of mandamus or any other writ compelling the authority to make the appointment. In that case, an advertisement was issued stating that there were 50 vacancies in the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). An examination was held by the HPSC and 40 candidate passed the said examination with the required minimum 45% marks. Their names were published in the Government Gazette. The State Government, the appointing authority, made seven appointments out of the said list in the order of merit. Respondents, who ranked 8, 9 and 13 respectively in that list, did not get an appointment although there were vacancies. The reason for not appointing the respondents was that in the view of the State Government, which was incidentally identical to that of the High Court, candidates getting less than 55% marks in the examination should not be appointed as Subordinate Judge in the interest of maintaining high standards of competence in judicial/ service. Respondents 1 to 3 challenged this decision on the ground that the State Government was not entitled to pick and choose only seven out of them for appointment, because to do so Tanta mounted to prescribing a standard which was not contemplated. The State Government on the other hand contended that the rules did not oblige them to fill in all the vacancies and it was open to them to appoint the first seven candidates in the interest of maintaining high standards. It was further contended that there was no question of picking and choosing and since the rules did not preclude it from selecting from the list the candidates for appointment to set a higher standard, the State Government could not be said to have infringed, any legal right of the selectees for appointment. In the background of these facts this Court came to the conclusion that the mere fact that the candidates were chosen for appointment in response to the advertisement did not entitle them to appointment. To put it differently, no right had vested in the candidates on their names having been entered on the select list and it was open to the Government for good reason not to make the appointments therefrom and fill in the vacancies.In a recent decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India , the Constitution Bench of this Court reiterated that even if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates do/not acquire any indefeasible right to appointment against the existing vacancies, It was pointed out that ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. The State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies by appointing candidates selected for that purpose. Albeit, the State must act in good faith and must not exercise its power mala fide or in an arbitrary manner. The Constitution Bench referred with approval the earlier decision of this Court in Subash Chander's case. Therefore, the law is settled that even candidates selected for appointment have no right to appointment and it is open to the Slate. Government at a subsequent date not to fill up the posts or to resort to fresh selection and appointment on revised criteria. In the present case the selection was yet to be made by the HPSC. Therefore, the petitioners cannot even claim that they were selected for appointment by the HPSC. The selection process had not been completed and before it could be completed the State Government reviewed its earlier decision and decided to revise the eligibility criteria for appointment. It is, therefore, clear from the settled legal position that the petitioners had no right to claim that the selection process once started must be completed and the Government cannot refuse to make appointments of candidates duly selected by the HPSC.