AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ajmer Singh has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in History in C.R. Kisan College, Jind.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 (C.K. Kisan Education Society, running the C.R. College, Jind, through its President) is running C.R. Kisan College which is a Government aided College and 95% aid is given by the Government of Haryana. This respondent issued an advertisement (P1) for filling up one post of Lecturer in History on regular basis. In pursuance of that advertisement the petitioner applied for the said post and was selected at serial No. 2 in order of merit by the Selection Committee vide copy of the proceedings of the Selection Committee (Annexure P2). In pursuance of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the candidate at serial No. 1, namely, Mrs. Shobha, who is respondent No. 6, was issued appointment better and she also joined as Lecturer in History. As she was not fulfilling the essential qualifications for the said post, therefore, her appointment was not approved by the Kurukshetra University (respondent No. 3) which further gave directions to the respondent-College vide letter dated 14.2.1995 (P3) to relieve respondent No. 6 and appoint the petitioner as Lecturer in History. In compliance to letter (Annexure P3), respondent No. 6 Smt. Shobha was relieved by respondent No. 4. In spite of the letter dated 14.2.1995 (Annexure P3) giving directions to respondent No. 5 to relieve respondent No. 6 and appoint the petitioner, respondent No. 5 sought clarification from respondent No. 2 (Director of Higher Education, Haryana) as to whether the petitioner could be appointed in such circumstances. Respondent No. 2 issued instructions to the effect that in case a candidate selected at serial No. 1 in order of merit happens to resign or the post falls vacant for any other reason, the next candidate in order of merit could be appointed within a period of six months. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 1.5.1995 (Annexure P7) addressed to respondent No. 5 clarified that the petitioner, who was selected at serial No. 2 in order of merit could be appointed as Lecturer in History in the respondent-College in view of the instructions (Annexure P6). According to the petitioner, the panel by which he was selected at serial No. 2 in order of merit was valid upto six months, i.e. upto 10th June, 1995. The petitioner made representation and requested respondent No. 5 to issue the appointment letter to him but respondent No. 5 arbitrarily did not issue the appointment letter. The representation of the petitioner is at Annexure P8. The petitioner alleges that the action on the part of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 in not issuing the appointment letter to him is illegal, unjust, unfair, unconstitutional, arbitrary and that he is entitled to be appointed as Lecturer against the post which became vacant on account of the relieving of respondent No. 6.

(3.) Notice of the writ petition was given to the respondent and the petition was contested by respondents Nos. 4 and 5 only, who filed the written statement. These respondents took a preliminary objection that no right of the petitioner had been affected in any way as the appointment could not be claimed as a matter of right. On merits it was stated that candidate at serial No. 1, namely, Mrs. Shobha, was appointed as Lecturer in History and her appointment was not approved by respondent No. 3, who simply stated in its letter (Annexure P3) that the petitioner may be appointed. Even otherwise respondent No. 4 is an independent body and is managed by the Management Committee. Respondent No. 3 has no administrative control over respondent No. 4, which is only affiliated with respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 5 was never directed by respondent No. 3 to appoint the petitioner. It was admitted by these respondents that the petitioner was selected at serial No. 2 and the selection was valid upto 10.6.1995. It was also admitted that the petitioner filed representation for the issuance of the appointment letter. Also it was admitted that Smt. Shobha (respondent No. 6) was relieved of her duty on 16.2.1995. However, she filed a writ petition No. 5868 of 1995 in the High Court and challenged the orders vide which her selection and appointment was not approved and that she was relieved from her duties. The writ petition of respondent No. 6 is pending in the High Court. Respondent No. 5 sought clarification from respondent No. 2 regarding the appointment of the petitioner as respondent No. 6 had filed civil writ petition in the High Court and therefore the matter was sub judice These clarfication were sought on 10.5.1995 and respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 2.6.1995 replied to the said letter to the effect that the case of Mrs. Shobha was subjudice on account of the filing of the writ petition by her and for that reason it was not proper to give appointment to the candidate at serial No. 2 in the panel. The respondents finally stated that the panel of the select list expired after six months. Hence the petitioner could not be given appointment because it is settled law that appointment cannot be claim as a matter of right.