RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks appointment on a Class -IV post on compassionate ground. His father died on 21.1.1997 after putting in 22 years of service. Mother of the petitioner made an application for appointment out of turn on compassionate grounds. This request was not accepted by the respondent. The petitioner and his mother, therefore, filed C.W.P. No. 17333 of 1998. The writ petition was decided by this Court on 3.8.2001. It was stated by counsel for the petitioners that the petitions would be satisfied if either of them is considered for Class -IV post for which they qualify, as and when a vacancy arises. Therefore, counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 conceded that the claim of the petitioners will be considered as and when a class -IV post falls vacant, for which they fulfill the qualifications.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the respondents had advertised a post of Peon on regular basis, on 24.4.2002. In the advertisement it is stated that the educational qualifications will be as per Punjabi University Calendar, i.e. Middle Pass/Matric pass, will be given preference. Admittedly, the petitioner has passed Class 5th Examination.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is a settled proposition of law that a candidate is only entitled to be considered for appointment. Even after selection no indefeasible right accrues in favour of the selected candidate to seek a writ in the nature of Mandamus for appointment, absence indubitable arbitrariness on the part of the appointing authority. It is also a settled proposition of law that appointments in public sector have to be made strictly in accordance with the Rules and the candidate must fulfill the qualifications laid down in the advertisement. Any appointment made in derogation of the statutory rules will invite the charge of arbitrariness and breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. For this proposition we find support from a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, 1990 (4) S.L.R. 237. It is also settled by the Supreme Court that appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right. For this view, we find support from another judgment of the Supreme Court, titled as Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana,, 1994 (3) SCT 174.