STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 a consequence thereof, directing the appellant-State to appoint him as the Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab.

(2.) The indisputable and relevant facts, necessary to be noticed for an appreciation of claims of the parties, are that the State of Punjab by Notification 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 made by the Committee, which interviewed them in which one M.L. Agnihotri was arrayed as No. 1, one Baldev Singh as No. 2 and the first respondent as No. 3. The first in the panel, M.L. 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 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 panel, should have been offered the appointment and not the second respondent. Though representations had been made by the first respondent asserting such a claim, the same were considered and rejected. It was at that stage the first respondent approached the High Court 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 same and relying upon an Administrative Circular issued by the State Government on 23-3-1957, the learned single Judge allowed the claim, as noticed earlier. The challenge made by the State in appeal before a Division Bench having failed, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Strong reliance has been placed by 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 to 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 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 member, reported in Virender S. Hood vs. State Haryana, (AIR 1999 SC 1701), wherein it was held relying upon the Circular Orders dated 22-3-1957, that when vacancies existing were filled in by appointing candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission further vacancies arising and available within six months from the receipt of recommendation of Public Service Commission have to be filled up out of the wait list maintained by the Public Service Commission.