BALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the government is bound to make appointment on all the advertised posts? This is the only question which needs adjudication in the petition filed by Shri Baljit Singh for issuance of a mandamus to the respondents to appoint him as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred that he applied for appointment as President of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in response to the advertisement Annexure P-1, dated 24. 4. 1997 issued by the Government of Haryana for the purpose of recruitment on 12 posts of Presidents of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums. He has further averred that the selection committee headed by the President, State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission interviewed him but without any rhyme or reason the respondent No. 1 has failed to appoint him in spite of the fact that one post has remained unfilled.

(3.) IN our opinion, the aforementioned contention of the learned counsel is wholly untenable and the petitioner cannot be granted relief by issuance of a mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. It is a well settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate for appointment on a public post cannot be confused with his/her suitability. The selection committee is not under a statutory obligation to make recommendation for appointment against all the advertised posts. If in a given case the committee finds that none of the candidate interviewed by it is suitable, the selection committee can decline to recommend even a single person and the candidate cannot, only on that ground, complaint of arbitrariness or mala fides.