IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.156 of 2008 Date of decision: 7.7.2009 Rajinder Singh & others. -----Appellants Vs. State of Punjab & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellants. ----- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment of the learned Single Judge, declining prayer for a direction to appoint the appellants to the posts of Constables. 2. The appellants applied for the post of Constables in Punjab Armed Police in pursuance of advertisement in the year 1993. In the advertisement, the number of vacancies was not mentioned. However, the Selection Committee made recommendation against 5159 vacancies, which included anticipated vacancies. Against the said vacancies, 2925 LPA No.156 of 2008 Constables were appointed out of already working SPOs, as per Government policy and the remaining 2234 vacancies were filled up from the merit list. There was an earlier round of litigation with a grievance that appointments were not being made in the order of seniority, as recommended. The batch of writ petitions being CWP No.12860 of 1996 Kulwant Singh etc. v. State of Punjab etc. etc. was disposed of vide order dated 17.10.1996 with a direction that merit list be published and appointments be made in the order of merit. Appointments already made by by- passing the merit, were set-aside. Further direction was given that in view of prohibition of future recruitments, as and when appointments are made in relaxation of the ban, the merit list prepared by the department will be followed. Writ petition giving rise to this appeal was filed in the year 1997, with a grievance that the decision of the Director General of Police dated 30.5.1997, restricting the appointments upto serial No.3070 in the merit list, was arbitrary. 3. The writ petition was contested with the plea that no candidate lower in merit to the petitioners, had been appointed. Since merit list was more than three years old, vide order dated 30.5.1997, decision to invalidate the said list was taken. 4. The learned Single Judge held as under:- i) The decision taken by the Director General of Police was mere reiteration of Government instructions, which provide for period of validity of select list. The 2 LPA No.156 of 2008 said direction was also in consonance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Harish Chandra and others (1996) 9 SCC 309; ii) Mere selection did not confer any right and the recruiting authority can take a decision not to appoint candidate, even if selected, as held in judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others 2006(2) RSJ 284, reiterating earlier judgments. In the present case, the reason given for not appointing the appellants, could not be held to be arbitrary. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 6. Contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the list of selected candidates prepared by the Selection Committee could not be invalidated by the Director General of Police. The appellants had become over-aged and were entitled to relaxation of age in future recruitments, to which effect a direction was given by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3919 of 1998 vide judgment dated 10.9.1998. It was also submitted that as per government instructions referred to in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, merit list expired six months, but in the present case, appointments have been made even after four years. The order dated 30.5.1997 was 3 LPA No.156 of 2008 mentioned, for the first time, in reply to contempt petition. Four months prior to that, extension of time was sought, in terms of order dated 17.10.1996 in CWP No.12860 of 1996. Under Section 12 of the Police Act, the power of Director General of Police to take a decision on the issue of organization, classification and distribution of police force was subject to approval by the State Government, which has not been done. The order dated 30.5.1997 had not been produced and in absence thereof, reasons in the order could not be scrutinized. 7. We are unable to find any merit in the contention raised. 8. The original advertisement did not specify the number of vacancies. The Selection Committee recommended 5159 candidates against number of vacancies which were anticipated. Against the said vacancies, 2925 candidates were appointed out of already working SPOs and the remaining vacancies were filled up out of the select list. There could not be any appointment beyond the advertised vacancies. The selection was held in the year 1993. Even though in accordance with judgment of this Court dated 17.10.1996, the process of appointments continued upto a period of four years, it could not confer any right on the appellants to seek continuation of the process of appointments for indefinite period, even if the number of vacancies did not find mention in the original advertisement. The reason for taking a decision to invalidate the list prepared at 4 LPA No.156 of 2008 the time of selection was, thus, patent. A contrary decision could not have been sustained. In this view of the matter, the issue raised that the Director General of Police was required to take approval of the State Government is of no consequence. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. 11. We also do not find any ground to give direction to grant relaxation in age, in absence of any right of the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that if there is any provision which the appellants can invoke, this order will not debar them from doing so, in accordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE July 07, 2009 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) ashwani JUDGE 5