LPA No.33 of 1998 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.33 of 1998 Date of decision: 25.01.2010 Satish Kumar ............Appellant Versus The Vice Chancellor, Kurukshetra University and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.C. Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the respondents. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. In the present LPA, order dated 9.10.1997 passed by learned Single Judge thereby dismissing the CWP No.13072 of 1993 is under challenged. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.1 issued advertisement calling applications for the one post of Sub Divisional Officer (Civil). Writ petitioner LPA No.33 of 1998 -2- applied for the post. After all the formalities, select list was prepared in which Sh. Sunil Kumar was placed at Sr. No.1 while the appellant/petitioner was placed at Sr. No.2. Sh. Sunil Kumar was given appointment, however, he resigned after serving about 3 months. Hence, appellant/petitioner is seeking appointment being the next candidate placed at Sr. No.2 in the select list. 3. Learned Single Judge has held that the appellant/petitioner has no legal right to ask for appointment on the ground that his name appears at Sr. No.2 in the select/ranking list prepared by the Selection Committee. The candidate, viz., Sunil Kumar, whose name was at Sr. No.1 of that list, joined on the post but after few months resigned and on the date of presentation of the writ petition, the life of the said select/ranking list was not surviving. Learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the judgment in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Saroj Devi and others reported in 1950-88(2) R.S.J. 243, decided by Devisional Bench of this Court and held that mere selection gives no indefeasible right to the selected candidates to claim appointment. He further placed reliance on the judgment in the mater of State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander Marwaha and others reported in AIR, 1973 S.C. 2216 in which the Apex Court held that:- “After preparation of the selection list it is open to the Government to decide how many appointments shall be made. The LPA No.33 of 1998 -3- mere fact that the candidate's name appears in that list, does not entitle him to be appointed.” 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Admittedly the Select list was prepared way back in 1993 and Sunil Kumar who ranked first joined on 22.06.1993 and left the services on 21.09.1993. However, appellant/petitioner was not given appointment and Vice Chancellor decided to fill up the post by giving appointment on ad hoc basis till the regular appointment is made. After 16 years, we do not find any justification to issue mandamus to the University to issue appointment to the appellant/petitioner simply because appellant stood at Sr. No.2 in the select/ranking list which was prepared in 1993 and its life span was only for six months. In any case, selected candidates have no right to seek appointment on the basis of select list. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 25.01.2010 JUDGE ashish