STATE OF PUNJABversusRAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA AND ANR.

A                           STATE OF PUNJAB
                                   v.
                     RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA AND ANR.

                                 OCTOBER 30, 2001

B             [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.]

           Public functionaries-Assistant Advocate General of State-Appoint-
     ment-Select Panel of three candidates-First candidate appointed but later
     resigned-Second candidate showing no inclination to join service-Third
C    candidate not offered appointment and a service cadre appointed on the basis
     of seniority-cum-merit-Claim for appointment by third candidate in the select
     panel-Held, cannot be entertained as by appointment of first empanelled
     candidate, the select panel ceased to exist and outlived its utility.

            Appellant-State issued a notification inviting applications for ap-
D     pointment to the post of Assistant Advocate General of State. A select
      panel of three candidates was prepared by the C~mmittee. First candidate
      in the select list joined the services but subsequently resigned. The second
      candidate in the select panel expressed his inability to accept the appoint-
      ment. Thereupon, appellant State appointed Respondent No. 2, serving in
E     the office of Advocate General for the said post on the basis of seniority-
      cum-merit. Respondent No.I, the third candidate in the select panel filed a
      writ petition claiming that he should have been offered appointment and
      not the second respondent. A Single Judge of High Court allowed the claim
      of respondent No. 1 relying upon the Government Circular dated 23.3.1957.
F     Appellant-State unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the,Division Bench of
    . High Court. Hence the present appeal •
                     .
           On behalf of appellant-State it was contended that mere empanel-
     ment in a select list does not confer upon such a person in the panel any
     right to get appointed to a post under the State and if for good and valid
G    reason, the State does not choose to appoint the said person in the panel, no
     right inheres in such a person to seek a mandate from the Courts for an
     appointment.

           Allowing the appeal, the Court

H          HELD : 1.1. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
                                       502
                      STATE v. R.C. SHARMA [RAJU, J.]                       503
High Court were not justified in directing the appellant-State to appoint          A
respondent No. 1 as the Assistant Advocate General [505-B]

       1.2. The Notification issued inviting applications was in respect of
one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but
on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subse-
quently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate        B
the select panel <;eased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate,
no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been
offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subse-
quent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other
vacancies a~sing subsequently. The Circular Orders dated 22.3.1957 re-             c
lates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a
panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the
Circular Orders no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appoint-
ment after the expiry of six months. [505-C-D]

      Virender S. Hood and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Am:, AIR (1999) SC
                                                                                   D
1701, held inapplicable.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURI~DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8034 of 1994.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.94 of the Punjab and Haryana           E
High Court in L.P.A. No. 1339 of ,1991.

      Rajeev Kumar Sharma for the Appellant.

      Mrs. Arnita Gupta for the Respondents.
                                                                                   F
      The Judgment of the C-0urt was delivered by

      RAJU, J. This appeal by the State of Punjab has been filed against the
Order dated 24.1.94 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana confirming the order of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court,
allowing CWP No.13347 of 1989 filed by the first respondent herein and as.         G
a consequence thereof, directing the appellant-State to appoint him as the
Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

      The indisputable and relevant facts, necessary to be noticed for an
appreciation of claims of the parties, are that the State of Punjab by a Notifi-
                                                                                   H
    504                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A   cation issued in August, 1987 invited applications from amongst practising
    advocates of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Law Officers of Government
    of Punjab for a post of Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, in the scale of
    Rs.2000-2300;· that from amongst' the applicants, who responded, a select
    panel of three candidates was ~ade by .the Committee, whiCh fnterviewed
    them in which one M.L. Agnihotri was arrayed as No.l, one Baldev Singh as
B
    No.2 and the first respondent as No.3. The first in the panel, ML. Agnihotri
    accepted the same and on being appointed, he joined the service also on
    16.10.1987, but subsequently resigned on 13.11.1987. The second candidate,
    Baldev Singh, on the select panel also on his own, by his letter dated 13.1.1988
    expressed that he was not interested and even if offered his inability to accept
c   the appointment. Thereupon, the State took a decision to fill up the post from
    the service cadre by promotion and that is how the second respondent, who was
    serving in the Office of· Advocate General, was on the basis of seniority'-cum-
    merit appointed' and he also retired on 31.7.1988. The grievance ·of the first
    respondent as writ petitioner was that he being the third·candidate in the select
D   panel, should have been offered the appointment and not the second respond-
    ent. Though representations had been made by the first respondent asserting
    such a claim, the same were considered and rejected. It was· ai that stage the
    first respondent approached the High <;ourt and the learned Single Judge was
    of the view that after the candidate at Serial No.2 in the select panel declined
    to accept the appointment, the first respondent should have been offered the
                                                                                        -
E   same and relying upon an administrative Circular issued by the State Govern-
                                                                          1
    ment on 23.3.1957, the learned Single Judge itl1owed the claim, as noticed
    earlier. The challenge made by the State in ~ppeal before a Division Bench
    having failed, this appeal has been filed.

           Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Strong reliance has
F
    been placed py the appellant on some decisions of this Court, wherein it has
    been held that mere empanelment in a select list does not confer upon such a
    person in the panel any right to get appointed t9 a post under the State and if
    for good and valid reason, the State does not.choose to appoint the· said person
    in the panel, no right inheres in such a person to seek a mandate from the Courts
G   for an appointment. Per contra, the learned; counsel .for the first· respondent
    placed strong reliance upon a decision of_ this Court, to which one of us
    (Rajendra Babu, J.) was a memper, f\'!ported in Virender S. Hood and Ors. v.
    State of Ha1yana & Anr., AIR (1999) SC 1701, wherein it was held relying
    upon the <::ircular Orders dated 22.3.1957 that when vacancies existing were
    filled in by appointing candidates recommended by the Public ServiCe Corri-
H
                          STATE v. R.C. SHARMA [RAJU, J.]                        505
    mission, further vacancies arising and availab~ within six months from the           A
    receipt of recommendation of Public Service Commission have to be filled up
    out of the wait list rp.aintained by the Public Service Commission.

           We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on
    either side. In our view, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge
    as well as the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot            B
    be sustained. As rightly contended for the appellant-State, the Notification
    issued inviting applications was in respect of one post and the first candidate
    in the select panel was not only offered but on his acceptance of offer came
    to be appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign. Wit~ the
    appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the         c
    consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to
    exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one· else in the panel can
    legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the
    vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person ap-
    pointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The
    Circular Orders dated 22.3.1957, in our view, refat~s to select panels prepared      D
    by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consid-
    eration. That apart, even as per the Circular Orders as also the decision relied
    upon for the first respondent, no claim can be a1serted and countenanced for
    appointment afier the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for
    such a claim to be enforced before Courts, leave alone there being any legally       E·
    protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising
    subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by. the process of promotion
    taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigen-
    cies.

          For all the reasons stated above; we are unable to approve the judgment        F
    under appeal: The appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed by the first
    respondent in the High Court will stand dismissed. No costs.

    S.V.K.                                                          Appeal allowed.




-