RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The post of Assistant Advocate General in the State of Punjab was advertised in August, 1987. Petitioner before me was one of the candidates for the said post. Interviews for selecting the candidates for the said post were held on 13.10.1987 by a Committee consisting of Home Secretary of the State of Punjab, Advocate General of the State of Punjab and the Legal Remembrancer of the State of Punjab. The said Committee made a panel of three candidates for the post and placed them in order of merit. Mr. M.L. Agnihotri, was placed at Serial No. 1, Mr.Baldev Singh Bhalur was placed at No. 2 whereas the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 3 in order of merit. It has been averred in the petition and which is not disputed that Mr. Agnihotri who was offered the appointment to the post of Assistant Advocate General, Punjab joined the post on 16.10.1987. However, he resigned from the job and was relieved on 13.11.1987. The said post which had fallen vacant because of the resignation of Mr. Agnihotri was offered to the candidate at serial No. 2 i.e. Mr.B.S. Bhalur, but he had given in writing that he is not interested in job. The post was then not offered to the petitioner but Mr. Harbhajan Singh, who was working as Assistant Registrar at ihat time in the office of Advocate General Punjab, was given the additional charge of the post of Assistant Advocate General, who continued to hold the additional charge upto 31.7.1988. Since the post had not been offered to the petitioner, he made various representations but to no effect. This led to the filing of the present writ petition in which prayer has been made that respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Advocate Gentral.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's name was kept at Sr. No. 3 by the Selection Committee, which had been approved by the Governor of the State of Punjab and since vacancy had arisen because of the resignation of Mr. M.L. Agnihotri who had joined as Assistant Advocate General and the candidate at No. 2 having refused to accept the offer of appointment as Assistant Advocate General, the petitioner should have been offered the appointment. Learned counsel drew my attention to the instructions of the State Government issued on 22.3.1957 (Annexure P-5) in which it had been provided that the waiting list should last atleast six months and if any additional vacancy arises after the date of selection, then the additional vacancy should be filled up from the waiting list. Further, it had been provided in the said instructions that if a candidate declines to accept the post offered to him against the vacancy which is intimated to the P.S.C. then such a vacancy can be filled up even after the expiry of six months out of the approved list of the candidates. Reliance was placed on a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Rohtash Singh Kharub V/s. State of Haryana, C.W.P. No. 8300 of 1987 decided on 18.9.1989 where similar instructions came up for consideration. In that case also two posts fell vacant. One person had declined to accept the offer and the other had resigned after accepting the offer. Under those circumstances the learned Judge held that the persons on the waiting list had a right to be appointed against those vacancies.

(3.) Mr. S.S. Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab appearing on behalf of the Respondents, however, contended that these instructions would be only applicable if a person who is on the select list declines the offer of appointment and the vacancy remains unfilled. It is only in those circumstances, according to the learned counsel, that the candidate on the waiting list would be offered the vacancy. In other words the argument was that if a candidate has joined the post and then the same becomes vacant by any process (by resignation or by death etc.) then the candidates on the waiting list has no right to claim that vacancy and a fresh selection would have to be made.