IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 3643 of 2008. Reserved on: 23.08.2010. Decided on: 31.08.2010. _________________________________________________________ Hem Singh and others. … Petitioner. Versus The Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others. … Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioners : Mr. S.R. Badhan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. None for other respondents. Rajiv Sharma, J.: The petitioners were called for interview for the post of Blacksmith on 4.10.1989. The same was cancelled by the respondent- Corporation on 25.10.1989. Thereafter, the interviews were held in the month of August, 1990 and November, 1990 for the post of Blacksmith, but the petitioners were not considered since their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. The petitioners thereafter approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No.367 of 1991. The learned Tribunal issued interim 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - direction on 23.5.1991 pursuant to which the petitioners were called for interview on 29.6.1991. Since their names were in waiting list, O.A. No.367 of 1991 was disposed of with a direction that in case three persons who were according to the respondents on the waiting panel have any grouse with regard to their appointment, they will be at liberty to approach the Tribunal again. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed. 2. Mr. S.R. Badhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the action of the respondents not to offer appointment letters to his clients on the basis of interview held on 29.6.1991 is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He then contended that since the names of his clients have been included in the waiting panel, they were required to be offered appointments. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has strenuously argued that the life of the panel was for one year and thereafter no appointments could be offered. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 4. Petitioners have been interviewed by the respondent- Corporation on the basis of directions issued by the learned Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.376 of 1991 on 29.6.1991. Their names were included in the waiting list at Sr. Nos. 15, 17 and 18. The private respondents were placed above the petitioners in the merit list on the basis of which they were appointed. Mr. S.R. Badhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that since the names of his clients have been included in the waiting list, they have - 3 - indefeasible right to be appointed against the post of Blacksmith. This plea cannot be accepted. The inclusion of names in the waiting list does not confer absolute right to appointment (See All India SC & ST Employees’ Association and another versus A. Arthur Jeen and others (2001) 6 SCC 380 and State of U.P. and another versus Om Prakash and others (2006) 6 SCC 474). 5. Mr. S.R. Badhan, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon “Prem Prakash V. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1831. This judgment is distinguishable on facts. In this judgment, their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court had interpreted the notification where it was stipulated that if the selected candidates are available from the previous list there should either be no further recruitment until those candidates are absorbed or in the alternative vacancies which are declared for the subsequent years should take into account the number of persons who are already in the list of selected candidates who are still awaiting appointment. No such notification has been brought to the notice of this Court by Mr. S.R. Badhan either issued by the State Government or by the respondent-Corporation. 6. It is settled law by now that the life of a panel is ordinarily one year unless or until it is extended on the basis of some Rules or instructions. The case of the respondent-Corporation is that the panel had exhausted on 28.6.1992 after the period of one year. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 has drawn the attention of the Court to Handbook on Personnel Matters, Vol.-I (Second Edition) whereby the life of panel drawn by the Departmental Promotion Committee as per para 16.17 (page 525) is made effective for a period of one year. - 4 - 7. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others versus B. Valluvan and others, (2006) 8 SCC 686 have held that the life of panel ordinarily is one year. Their Lordships have held as under (paras 10 and 17):- “Recruitment process, as is well known, must be commensurate with the statute or the statutory rule operating in the field. We have noticed hereinbefore, advertisement was made for three posts. It was not indicated therein that another panel for filling up of the future vacancies was to be prepared by the Selection Committee. In the select list prepared by the Selection Committee, the name of 1st Respondent was at Serial No.4. Recommendations were made containing the names of 19 persons for future vacancies. Only because a panel has been prepared by the Selection Committee, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the same should be given effect to irrespective of the fact that there was no such rule operating in the field. The Selection Committee was bound to comply with the selection process only in terms of the extant rules. It was bound to follow the stipulations made in the advertisement itself. Even in the advertisement it was not indicated that a select list would be prepared for filling up future vacancies. The Selection Committee, having been appointed only for recommending the names of suitable candidates, who were fit to be appointed, could not have embarked upon the question as regards likelihood of future vacancy. The life of a panel ordinarily is one year. The same can be extended only by the State and that too if the statutory rule permits it to do it. The High Court ordinarily would not extend the life of a panel. Once a panel stands exhausted upon filling up of all the posts, - 5 - the question of enforcing a future panel would not arise. It was for the State to accept the said recommendations of the Selection Committee or reject the same. As has been noticed hereinbefore, all notified vacancies as also the vacancy which arose in 2000 had also been filled up. As the future vacancy had already been filled up in the year 2000, the question of referring back to the panel prepared in the year 1999 did not arise. The impugned judgment, therefore, cannot be sustained.” 8. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board through The Chief Engineer, M.P. EB and another versus Virendra Kumar Sharma, (2002) 9 SCC 650 have held that after the period as per circular dated 9.12.1988 the list would lapse and fresh panel has to be prepared. The salutary principle behind that Rule is that after the selections are made and appointments to be made may take long time, it is possible that new candidates may have become available who are better or more qualified than those selected, and if they are appointed, it would be in the best interests of the institution. 9. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and another versus Rajkishore Nanda and others, (2010) 6 SCC 777 have held that a select list cannot be treated as reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it so required. Their Lordships have further held that the inclusion in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. Their Lordships have held as under (paras 14, 15, 16 and 18):- “A person whose name appears in the select list does not acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment at the best is a condition of eligibility for - 6 - the purpose of appointment and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed. The vacancies have to be filled up as per the statutory rules and in conformity with the constitutional mandate. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of the candidate’s name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination. (See also Asha Kaul v. State of J&K, Union of India v. S.S. Uppal, Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar, Simanchal Panda v. State of Orissa, Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh, Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish, Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy, Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala, Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala.) A select list cannot be treated as a reservoir for the purpose of appointments, that vacancy can be filled up taking the names from that list as and when it is so required. It is the settled legal proposition that no relief can be granted to the candidate if he approaches the Court after the expiry of the select list. If the selection process is over, select list has expired and appointments had been made, no relief can be granted by the court at a belated stage. (Vide J. Ashok Kumar v. State of A.P., State of Bihar v. Mohd. Kalimuddin, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra, Sushma Suri v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj, K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission, Deepa Keyes v. Kerala SEB and Subha B. Nair.) - 7 - It is the exclusive prerogative of the employer/State Administration to initiate the selection process for filling up vacancies occurred during a particular year. There may be vacancies available but for financial constraints, the State may not be in a position to initiate the selection process for making appointments. Bona fide decision taken by the appointing authority to leave certain vacancies unfilled, even after preparing the select list cannot be assailed. The courts/tribunals have no competence to issue direction to the State to initiate selection process to fill up the vacancies. A candidate only has a right to be considered for appointment, when the vacancies are advertised and selection process commences, if he possesses the requisite eligibility.” 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. There shall be no order as to costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. August 31, 2010. (sck).