IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No.1461 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.2.2009 Kuldip Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri D.K.Gupta, Advocate. Versus The General Manager, Northern Railway and another. ....... Respondents through Shri J.K.Verma,Advocate for Shri Puneet Jindal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 24.1.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur (hereinafter described as `the First Appellate Court') vide which the judgment and decree dated 7.11.2002 of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur (referred to hereinafter as `the trial Court') were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed. The appellant filed a suit for declaration by pleading that he had applied for appointment on the post of a Constable in the Northern Railway; that he had successfully completed the test and physical R.S.A.No.1461 of 2008 -2- .... examination; that a letter was received by him on 19.1.1998 to report at 10.00 A.M. on 27.1.1998 at Hussainapur (Kapurthala) for medical examination; that he appeared before the medical authorities for that purpose and was found fit in all respects; and that he was assured that the appointment letter would follow, but since it did not materialize, he served notice upon the respondents under Section 80 of the C.P.C. On the basis of these averments, he prayed that it be declared that he is entitled to appointment of Constable w.e.f. 19.1.1998 and the respondents be mandated to pay him him the arrears on account of such appointment. Upon notice, the respondents appeared and filed written statement wherein they pleaded that as per employment notice dated 11.11.1996, applications were invited for filling the posts of Constables in the Northern Railway. In Punjab, 94 posts of Constables were meant for general category. First 73 candidates of general category were allotted to Ferozepur Division; remaining 21 candidates of general category along with 28 Scheduled Castes category and one of Scheduled Tribes candidate, total 50 candidates, were allotted to Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala and 4 candidates of Scheduled Tribes category and 50 candidates of OBC category for Punjab State were allotted to Delhi Division, for medical examination and police verification etc. However, 9 vacancies of Scheduled Tribes category for Punjab State remained unfilled and the same were still existing. As per the aforementioned allocation, the merit list of 21 candidates of general category, 28 candidates of Scheduled Castes category and 1 candidate of Scheduled Tribes category, total 50 candidates approved R.S.A.No.1461 of 2008 -3- .... by the Central Selection Committee was to be sent to the Security Commissioner, Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala, but due to typographical error, the names of all the fifty candidates of general category, including 29 candidates who were not borne on the merit list of successful candidates of that category, including the name of the appellant, were sent and the names of 28 candidates of Scheduled Castes category and 1 candidate of Scheduled Tribes category who were placed on the merit list were not forwarded. Due to this mistake, the appellant was called for medical examination and this was detected at the time of compilation of the list of each category. When the medical examination of the excess candidates of general category was in progress, the names of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes category and Scheduled Tribes category were sent to the Security Commissioner for medical examination etc. and after completing the necessary formalities, the candidates of each category have been appointed in accordance with their quota. It was averred that the officials who had committed the aforesaid mistake were reprimanded. It was denied that the appellant had any right to be appointed on the post of Constable in view of the aforementioned facts. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP 2. whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as alleged?OPD R.S.A.No.1461 of 2008 -4- .... 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is bad for legal notice as alleged?OPD 5. Relief. After appraisal of the entire evidence on record, the trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant with costs. He was declared entitled for consideration for appointment as Constable in the Railway Protection Force and the respondents were directed to consider his case for appointment as such and pass a self-speaking and self-contained order to that effect within two months. In appeal, the First Appellate Court concluded that it was a case where the appellant had played a fraud with the respondents and in fact, there were two persons of the same name and parentage with different residential addresses. It further concluded that the appellant was not the same person, who had filled up the form and he had impersonated some other person and thereafter, directed registration of a case against him by referring the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur for enquiry and further directed that if any cognizable offence is made out after enquiry and collection of evidence, then legal action be taken and report be sent to the Court. The enquiry was ordered to be completed within three months. Accordingly, the appeal was accepted with costs of Rs.5000/- and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. The appellant has assailed the aforesaid findings of the first Appellate Court in the instant appeal. R.S.A.No.1461 of 2008 -5- .... Learned counsel for the appellant contended that once the letter had been sent to the appellant by the respondents directing him to get himself medically examined and also directing his police verification, his appointment could not have been withheld. It was further contended that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court were totally contrary to the evidence and has resulted in great prejudice to the appellant as the police has now registered a case against him and he is confronted with criminal prosecution. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellant has no right to be appointed as mere selection does not confer any right in that regard. It was further contended that even if the name of the appellant was appearing at S.No.25 in the merit list, only 21 candidates of general category were appointed and the persons whose names were at S.Nos. 22, 23 and 24 were not appointed. He, thus, submitted that the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court are correct and do not warrant any interference. I have thoughtfully considered the respective contentions and have perused the record. The settled proposition of law is that a person, who is selected, has no right to be appointed as a matter of right. Mere selection does not confer any right upon a candidate to claim appointment on a particular post. Moreover, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, only candidates up to S.No.21 were appointed from the merit list of general category and three persons over & above the appellant were not appointed. R.S.A.No.1461 of 2008 -6- .... Therefore, looking at it from any angle, even if it is accepted that the name of the appellant was included in the merit list, considering the fact that only 21 candidates from that list were appointed and three candidates over and above him were not appointed, he cannot make any grievance of his not being appointed. The appeal is, therefore, totally without any merit. However, considering the facts in their totality, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court whereby an enquiry and registration of a criminal case against the appellant has been ordered is totally unwarranted. The First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant had impersonated some other Kuldip Singh by comparing his signatures with naked eye and also by noticing the fact that date of birth as stated by him in his deposition before the trial Court and the one filled in the form was different. That by itself cannot be a ground to conclude that the appellant had impersonated some one else. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that this finding deserves to be set aside. In the result, the above finding recorded by the First Appellate Court in its judgment is reversed and the rest of the findings are affirmed. The appeal is dismissed with the above observations. February 18,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge