STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State of Punjab challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated October 24, 1991 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 13347 of 1989. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent and directed the appellant to appoint him as Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

(2.) The State of Punjab vide notification issued in August, 1987 (see Annexure P-4) invited applications for a post of Assistant Advocate General, Punjab in the scale of Rs. 2000-2300. The applications were invited from amongst the practising Advocates of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Law Officers of Government of Punjab. It is common premise that the first respondent (writ petitioner) had submitted his application within the prescribed time. It is also common premise that the second respondent, who has been appointed, had neither applied for the post of Assistant Advocate General in pursuance of the said notification nor he appeared before the Selection Committee. After processing the applications, a committee of three persons was constituted which consisted of Home Secretary to Government Punjab, Legal Rememberancer (now Secretary) to Government Punjab and the Advocate General, Punjab. The Committee interviewed various eligible candidates and ultimately selected three candidates namely; M.L. Agnihotri, Baldev Singh and Raghbir Chand Sharma, the first respondent. These three persons were accordingly kept on the select panel. Mr. Agnihotri joined the service on 16.10.1987 but, however, he resigned on 13.11.1987. The second candidate on the select panel namely Baldev Singh vide his letter dated 13.1.1988 informed the State Government his inability to accept the offer. It is also not in dispute that the first respondent was never offered the post of Assistant Advocate General although he was on the select panel.

(3.) In the meantime, the State of Punjab took a decision to fill in the post of Assistant Advocate General from the service cadre. Respondent No. 2 happened to be from the service cadre and accordingly he came to be appointed as Assistant Advocate General. Aggrieved by this decision, the respondent No. 1 filed the abovesaid writ petition and prayed that the appellant be directed to give appointment to him against the vacancy since he happened to be on the select panel. He also prayed for giving him seniority from the date of 16.10.1987 with all other benefits. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the appellant and the main plea that was taken by the appellant in their written statement was that the first respondent has no cause of action to challenge the appointment of the second respondent. A contention was also taken that the moment Mr. Agnihotri the first candidate on the select panel joined and resigned the entire select panel stands scrapped and it is no more operative and, therefore, respondent has no right to claim any benefit on the basis of said select panel.