IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8121 of 2002 Date of decision: March 4, 2008. Digvijay Pal Sharma ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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. Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.S. Pawar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): In this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the official respondents No.1 to 3 to offer him appointment against the post of SS Master. The above stated relief has been sought by the petitioner primarily on the ground that he is at No.1 in the 'waiting list' and since one of the selected candidates placed above him in the merit list, namely, respondent No.4 (Kulwinder Singh) has refused to join the post of SS Master, the petitioner is entitled to be offered appointment. After issuance of notice of motion, the official respondents have filed their reply dated 24.7.2002 in which the placement of the petitioner at No.1 in the waiting list is not disputed. Similarly, the fact that respondent No.4, a candidate higher in merit, has refused appointment, is also not in dispute. The respondents, however, have contested the petitioner's claim primarily on the ground that he cannot claim appointment as a matter of right, and that period of six months having elapsed after the preparation of the selection list, there is no valid waiting list. It further appears that the respondents have also been taking the plea that there is a ban on recruitment in the State of Punjab. It is well known that a candidate in the 'waiting list' cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. However, once the appointing authority takes a conscious decision to fill up certain number of posts, it is obliged to offer appointment to the selected candidates strictly in order of merit and to the extent of advertised posts. It has come on record that 175 candidates were offered appointment out of whom a few candidates, including respondent No.4 (Kulwinder Singh) refused to accept the appointment. The respondents do not plead any change in the circumstances or reduction in the cadre strength and/or any other valid reason to withhold appointments to the extent above. If that is so, the petitioner, being the next candidate in order of merit, is entitled to the appointment against the resultant unfilled post. Justifiability of the ban on appointments imposed by the State Govt. was gone into by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raj Kumari v. State of Punjab & Ors., 2004(3) PLR 891, wherein it has been held that such a ban will not affect where selection or appointments have already been made. As regards to the right of a wait-listed candidate for appointment, the issue is no longer res integra. In plethora of cases, viz, Rohtash Singh Kharb v. State of Haryana & Ors, 1989(6) SLR 45, and Parambir Singh v. State of Punjab 2003(3) RSJ 162, it has been held that if a candidate higher in merit refused to accept offer of appointment, the next candidate in waiting list, who, if appointed, shall not amount to offering appointment beyond the advertised posts, is entitled to such appointment in terms of the govt. policy, referred to in the judgments (supra). Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated, this writ petition is allowed; the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SS Master in the light of the above mentioned judgments, subject, however, to the condition that he fulfills other eligibility conditions. The needful shall be done within a period of four months. No costs. March 04, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge