HARJI P. KATARIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) to 6. xxx xxx xxx

(2.) By now the law on the right of a person placed in the waiting list is well -settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision in the case of Government of Orissa v. Haraprasad Das, AIR 1998 SC 375, observed that even in case where the person is placed in the select list, the Government taking policy decision not to fill up the post, in such a case also, the Court cannot direct the Government to make appointment and mere empanelment or inclusion of one's name in the select list does not give him any right to be appointed. In a decision reported in AIR 1994 SC 736 (State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. S. E. Union 1986), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that candidates selected and empanelled do not acquire indefeasible right to be appointed. In a decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 1851 (All India SC and ST Employees Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen), it is held that candidates included in the panel indicating their provisional selection do not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of vacancies.

(3.) The learned advocate for the respondent has also placed reliance on a decision reported in 2002 (4) SCC 726 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there are only two restrictions on the appointing authorities, namely, that the appointment must be made in accordance with the reservation rules, if any, and the panel of selected candidates cannot be scrapped during the period of its validity except for well founded reasons. It is further observed in the said decision that there was ban on regular appointment under the Act which came to an end in the year 2000 and the period of validity of the 1995 rank list had long since expired and that, therefore, no directions can be given for appointment from the said list. In the facts of the present case, I find that the petitioners were placed not even in the select list, but their names were found in the waiting list. As stated in the affidavit -in -reply, which is more or less uncontroverted, appointments to the available vacancies were already made from the select list. There was, therefore, no question of operating the waiting list it is not the case of the petitioners that persons who are offered employment from the select list did not come forward to accept the same and therefore such vacancies should have been filled in by the petitioners. When the select list is operated for making appointments to the existing vacancies and the vacancies have been exhausted and no further vacancies are available, persons in the waiting list cannot make a grievance that their appointments are not made, more so when the life of the waiting list was for a period of maximum one year and admittedly the same had expired long before the ban was lifted. Even in absence of a ban for recruitment, the respondents could not have operated the waiting list in question to make appointments towards future vacancies and on that count also, the claim of the petitioners could not have been accepted.