L.P.A. NO. 49 OF 2008. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No. 49 of 2008. Date of Decision: October 4th ,2008. Ashok Kumar & Ors. Appellants through Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. Respondents through Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.AG, Haryana Mr. B.K.Bagri, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 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? SURYA KANT, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th August, 2007 whereby the appellants' writ petition seeking quashing of selection, based on the result declared on 8th June, 1995 to the post of JBT Teachers and also a direction for their appointment as JBT Teachers on the basis of previous selection, result of which was declared on 30th April and 4th May, 1995, has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. [2]. The facts giving rise to this appeal may be noticed briefly. [3]. The appellants possess the academic qualifications of Graduation/Post Graduation along with the B.Ed. They applied for 3088 posts of JBT Teachers [1784 male+1304 female] advertised by L.P.A. NO. 49 OF 2008. ::-2-:: the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, [ for short 'the Board'] on 22nd August, 1993. As per the advertisement, a candidate having qualified Matric [full subjects] along with two years' Junior Base Training Course/Diploma in Education Training Course, was eligible. As they did not possess the afore-stated two years' JBT/Diploma course, the appellants' candidature was rejected by the Board. Some of them approached this Court through Civil Writ Petitions No. 15026 and 15761 of 1993 seeking a direction to the Board to treat them eligible. Interim directions that the candidates possessing B.A.B.Ed. qualification be also considered eligible for the advertised posts were issued by this Court. The afore-stated writ petitions are stated to be still pending. Meanwhile, it appears that the department and the Board decided that B.A.B.Ed. candidates, like the appellants, would also be considered for selection against the posts of JBT Teachers to the extent of non-availability of suitable candidates possessing the prescribed qualification for the posts. [4]. In all, there were 829 posts meant for general category. The Board sent a selection list on 30th December, 1993 recommending the names of 597 general category candidates having qualification of JBT/Diploma Course. After the appointment of these candidates, 232 posts still remained vacant. The Board accordingly sent two lists dated 30th April and 4th May, 1995 of the selected male and female candidates respectively, having B.A.B.Ed. qualification. These two selection lists have been placed on record as Annexure P- 6 [Colly]. [5]. Meanwhile, the Board issued yet another advertisement L.P.A. NO. 49 OF 2008. ::-3-:: on 22nd December, 1994 inviting applications against 5160 posts of JBT teachers, out of which 2305 were meant for general category. Claiming that the aforementioned advertised posts include even those vacancies against which the appellants already stood selected, they filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the selection made pursuant to the afore-stated subsequent advertisement and also a direction for their own appointment. [6]. Countering the appellants' claim, the respondent- authorities have come up with a categoric stand that after appointment of 597 candidates possessing two years' JBT/Diploma course, the remaining 232 posts meant for general category have also been filled up strictly in order of merit by appointing the candidates, like the appellants, having B.A.B.Ed. qualification. According to the respondents, the last candidate appointed from amongst the B.A.B.Ed. qualified candidates is placed at Sr. No.264 in the selection list [Annexure P-6] and all the writ petitioners are placed lower in merit to that candidate. [7]. The learned Single Judge, after taking notice of the fact that all 829 posts meant for the general category candidates which were subject matter of advertisement No. 4 of 1993 dated 22nd August, 1993 against which the appellants applied for and got selected, have already been filled up by offering appointment to the candidates higher in merit than the writ petitioners, has turned down their claim for appointment against the subsequent advertised posts on the ground that mere selection does not confer any right to appointment nor appointments beyond the advertised posts are L.P.A. NO. 49 OF 2008. ::-4-:: permissible in law. [8]. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record including the additional documents placed on record by the appellants but not relied upon before the learned Single Judge, we find no merit in this appeal. It is the appellants' own case that they applied against 3088 posts of JBT Teachers advertised by the Board on 22nd August, 1993. It is indeed an admitted fact that out of these posts, 829 posts [519 male and 310 female] were meant for the general category, to which the appellants belong. It is also not in dispute that at the first instance, 597 general category candidates possessing two years diploma in JBT or equivalent qualification and otherwise fully eligible in terms of the advertised qualifications, were given appointment on the basis of a selection list dated 30.04.1993. Against the remaining 232 posts, candidates possessing B.A.B.Ed. qualification who were higher in merit than the appellants, as per the selection lists dated 30th April and 4th May, 1995, have been appointed. The appellants, thus, have failed to make out any case of pick and choose policy in the matter of appointment by ignoring the merit lists prepared by the Board. [9]. As regards their challenge to the selection made by the Board pursuant to the subsequent advertisement dated 22nd December, 1994 [Annexure P-8], in our considered view, the same can not be entertained for the reason that none of the selected candidates was arrayed by the appellants as party-respondent to these proceedings. In fact, no ground whatsoever except that the appellants have an alleged preferential right to seek appointment L.P.A. NO. 49 OF 2008. ::-5-:: against the subsequently advertised posts, has been pressed into service to assail the subsequent selection. The relief sought by the appellants in this regard appears to be wholly misconceived. [10]. We also concur with the learned Single Judge that the appointment can not be claimed as a matter of right merely on the basis of empanelment, which, at the best, could be called the waiting-list only. The respondents can not be compelled through a writ of Mandamus to offer appointment to the wait-listed candidates beyond the advertised posts. It is not the case of the appellants that any one out of 597 candidates, who were offered appointment at the first instance, or any one out of the 232 subsequently appointed candidates, has refused such an offer or could not be appointed for any valid reason. [11]. In all fairness to learned counsel for the appellants, it is argued that two candidates, namely, Sheela Mehra [Merit No.1393] and Vijender Singh [Merit No.1110] were lower in merit to some of the appellants but have been appointed by the respondents. It is urged that both these candidates had applied in the general category but have been appointed against the posts reserved for “Scheduled Castes” and “dependents of Ex-servicemen” categories respectively. We are not impressed by this contention as well. Firstly, the appellants have not claimed appointment against the posts meant for the aforementioned reserved categories. Secondly, if the two candidates, referred to above, have been erroneously considered against the reserved category posts, any candidate[s] belonging to the reserved categories who might have been denied appointment for L.P.A. NO. 49 OF 2008. ::-6-:: want of vacancy, could assail the appointments by impleading those candidates, who are not party respondents in these proceedings. [12]. For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE October 4,2008. ( T.S.THAKUR ) dinesh CHIEF JUSTICE