TAHSILDAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed alleging that the non -petitioner Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhind, is a body corporate constituted under the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter called the Act). Under section 30 of the Act every market committee may appoint such officers and servants as may be necessary for the efficient discharge of its duties. Sub -section (2) of this section says that the market committee may make byelaws for regulating the appointment, pay, leave, allowances, pensions, gratuities, contribution to provident fund and other conditions of service of officers and servants appointed under Sub -section (1) and for providing for the delegation of power, duties and functions.

(2.) THE non -petitioner committee issued a notice inviting applications for the post of Chowkidar on 13 -8 -1981 (Annexure P -2). The said committee appointed an selection committee for making selection of persons for the post of Chowkidar. The selection committee interviewed several persons and recommended the names of two persons including the petitioners (Annexure P -3). The petitioners were appointed as Chowkidar on 21 -12 -1981 by the respondent committee. The appointment orders are Annexures P -4 to P -6. It is said that after the issuance of above appointment letters the Deputy Director, Agriculture, Bhind, issued a letter on 26 -12 1981to the Mandi Committee at the instance of the Collector, Bhind for not appointing the persons selected earlier (Annexure P -7). Thereafter the Deputy Director, Agriculture did not decide the matter relating to the appointment of the petitioners for several months. The Mandi Committee issued a letter on 23 -5 -1982 requesting the Deputy Director for seeking clarification from the Collector, Bhind. It is not known what transpired between them but it is learnt that a resolution was passed by the Mandi Committee on 25 -7 -1982 whereby all the appointments made by the selection committee on different posts were cancelled. Aggrieved by the said resolution of the Mandi Committee the present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 for quashing the resolution.

(3.) THE point for determination, therefore, is firstly, as to whether the petitioners have been appointed on the said posts or not and, secondly, whether on the strength of the Annexures P -4 to P -6, they have a right to be appointed on the said posts. I have gone through the letter dated 21 -12 -1981 issued to the petitioners from the office of the Krish Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhind. It would be better to quote the said order as it is: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... The above order leaves no room for doubt that no appointment order was given, vide Annexures P -4 to P -6. It was only an intimation that the applicants were selected for the post of Chowkidar and in order to issue an appointment letter they were required to submit medical certificate regarding their fitness and also the certificate about their domicile on the basis of which appointment letters were to be issued. The aforesaid fact, therefore, goes to show that the matter was at the procedural stage. The question is whether mere selection on a post by a committee or an authority will give a right of appointment. The answer has to be 'No'. If a person is found fit and selected for appointment on any post then the entire circle is not complete. Unless the appointment order is issued or made and the person receives it, a right to claim appointment does not arise. In the present case the appointments were stayed by the Deputy Director, Agriculture. The order dated 26 -12 -1981 (Annexure P -7) shows that a direction was issued by the Deputy Director that the appointments be not made on the basis of the interviews for selection taken on 19 -11 -1981 and 20 -11 -1981. Annexure P -9 further shows that a decision was taken on 25 -7 -1982 that the entire selection was cancelled and a decision was taken that fresh selections were to be made.