1/4 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1064/1995 (Rajendra Sharma vs. Raj.State Cooperative Spinning & Ginning Mills Federation Ltd. and ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 21/10/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Kamal Dave, for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Joshi for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. By this petition, writ petitioner has claimed appointment on the post of Assistant Cotton Selector with the respondent no.1-Rajasthan State-Cooperative Spinning and Ginning Mills Federation Ltd.,Jaipur in its Hanumangarh Junction Unit. 3. The petitioner has come with the case that under Annex.1 advertisement issued by the respondents for the post of Assistant Cotton Selector, the petitioner fulfilled the requisite conditions and qualification as well as experience and he was selected for appointment on the said post but since the respondent no.3, an in house candidate, came to be appointed on the said post, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition challenging the appointment of respondent no.3 – Akbar Khan inter alia on the ground that respondent no.3 did not fulfill the requisite qualification and did not have any experience as Cotton Selector and, therefore, appointment granted to him was illegal and arbitrary, whereas, petitioner stood at serial no.2 in the merit list/select panel and, he ought to have been appointed on the said post. 2/4 4. Mr.Kamal Dave appearing for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court towards Annex.7-seniority list of LDC published by the respondent Federation on 1/1/95 in which name of respondent no.3 appears at serial no.69. He submitted that since respondent no.3 did not possess the experience as Cotton Selector but was working as LDC only, he cannot be provided appointment on the said post even though he was just below him in the merit list. 5. On the side opposite, Mr.Rajesh Joshi appearing for respondents no.1 and 2 submitted that the certificate dated 4/10/94 issued in favour of petitioner by previous employer of petitioner i.e Lord Krishna Textile Mills, which is placed at Annex.R/2 merely discloses that petitioner was working as Testing Investigator since 5th July, 1983 and he is working at N.T.C.(U.P.), Bhatinda since 22nd May, 1990 as Cotton Selector. Upon verification of said certificate, one of the panelist of the Selection Committee Mr.Omanand Sharma found and conveyed vide letter dated 26/9/1994 that upon inquiry at Bhatinda, he found that petitioner had given wrong information before the Committee that he is working as Cotton Selector in N.T.C. at Bhatinda, whereas, he is not working as Cotton Selector and he is only Office Assistant, therefore, said member of the Committee opined that though the petitioner was selected and kept at serial no.2 in panel but in view of wrong information submitted by him at the time of interview, he should not be provided with appointment and in house candidate available with the respondent namely respondent no.3-Akbar Khan could be so given such appointment. 3/4 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has also produced the original proceedings of selection including the aforesaid letter, though the same was not placed earlier on record with reply. In reply filed to the writ petition, respondent had denied right of petitioner to be appointed and learned counsel submitted that petitioner had merely right to be considered and the decision making process of respondent in this regard cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in any manner. 7. I have heard learned counsels and perused the record of the case. 8. From the facts appearing before this Court, it appears that though petitioner possessed requisite qualification and also some experience as Cotton Selector as is clear from the certificate issued by previous employer-Lord Krishna Textile Mills but since the member of the Committee found upon investigation that the petitioner had given wrong information to the Committee at the time of interview and though he was working as Office Assistant in said Lord Krishna Textile Mills but he misled the Committee to believe that he is working as Cotton Selector, thereupon the respondent found it more appropriate to appoint next man available with them namely respondent no.3-Akbar Khan. It is for the employer to weigh the pros and cons in this regard and unless decision making process of the respondent is found to be arbitrary, this Court cannot substitute its own opinion upon the respondent in this regard. 4/4 9. In view of averments made in reply supported by documents produced before this Court for perusal, this Court is satisfied that the decision making process of respondent nos.1 and 2 in this regard cannot be said to be arbitrary. Merely fulfillment of qualification and eligibility of experience does not confer any right upon the petitioner to be appointed and no mandamus can be issued in this regard unless the decision making process of respondents, an instrumentality of State amenable to jurisdiction of this Court, is found to be arbitrary or where the fairness in the decision making process is not found. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent, therefore, this Court cannot find fault in appointment of respondent no.3 on the post of Cotton Selector. 11. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.s/6 baweja/-