IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17490 of 1994 Date of decision: 04.11.2009 P.C. Chauhan. -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Punjab & Others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl.A.G., Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. --- ORDER: 1. This order is being passed in continuation of order dated 22.4.2009 whereby selection to the posts of Punjab Civil Services (Executive & Allied Services) in pursuance of advertisement issued in June, 1993 was upheld. The matter was, however, kept pending to consider the stand of the State about claim of the writ petitioner against post which may have become available on account of cancellation of appointments of candidate appointed in Backward Class category. CWP No.17490 of 1994 2. In pursuance of the said direction, an affidavit dated 10.8.2009 has been filed by Sh. VInod Bakshi, Deputy Secretary to Govt. of Punjab, Department of Personnel, Chandigarh, indicating that in the Backward Class category, four candidates were recommended by the Punjab Public Service Commission, out of whom, one person was not appointed as his certificate of Backward Class was not found to be genuine and the remaining three were appointed. The vacancy so caused was required to be carried forward in terms of instructions dated 11.1.1962, Annexure R-1. Since no waiting list was recommended by the Public Service Commission, claim of the petitioner, who may be next in the list of selected candidates, could not be considered. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Only contention which has been put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of instructions dated 22.3.1957, Annexure P-11, if a candidate does not join, appointment from the approved list of candidates, received from the Commission, could be made. 5. In the present case, there was no other person in the approved list recommended by the Commission. Even if the Commission had recommended such a candidate, there could be no compulsion to make appointment, as mere selection did not confer any right to seek a mandamus for appointment, unless action of the State was malafide or discriminatory. No other 2 CWP No.17490 of 1994 person, who may be lower to the petitioner in the merit in the Backward Class category, has been given appointment. 6. In these circumstances, no further order is called for. 7. The petition is disposed of. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 04, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3