IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16605 of 1999 Date of decision: 11.2.2009 Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others -----Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. RK Malik, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Vikas Malik and Mandeep Kaushik, Advocates. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG.Haryana for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition has been filed for a direction to give appointment letters to the petitioners on the basis of their selection on 22.5.1999 to the posts of Patwaris. 2. Case of the petitioners is that on 7.9.1997, an advertisement was issued for filling up 1055 posts of Patwaris CWP No.16605 of 1999 by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Written test was held on 29.11.1998, which was followed by interview between 8.4.1999 to 20.4.1999. Result was announced on 22.5.1999. 1055 candidates were selected. 288 candidates have joined as petitioners in this petition. It is stated that there are other petitions also by some of the candidates. After selection, the petitioners were not given appointments. The petitioners served a legal notice dated 18.10.1999 but no reply was received. The present petition was filed in this Court in November 1999. 3. Contention raised in the petition is that the petitioners having been duly selected, have acquired a right to appointment. 4. In the written statement filed by the State, the petition has been opposed by submitting that no right of appointment accrues merely on selection. Due to increased expenditure liability on account of pay revision and other factors, there was rise in fiscal deficit of the State and the Government had taken a decision not to offer appointments to selected candidates. 2 CWP No.16605 of 1999 5. In a further affidavit filed on 23.8.2001, it is stated that 1248 posts of Patwaris were advertised earlier and there was stay against appointments beyond 1248 advertised posts. 6. When a bunch of petitions came up for hearing earlier on August 2, 2005, the same were dismissed. Earlier, vide order dated 23.5.2000, the present writ petition was allowed on the ground of reasonable expectation of selected candidates to get appointment and a direction was issued to depute the petitioners for training in batches. However, on appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 9.2.2001 in Civil Appeal No.1197 of 2001 (State of Haryana and others v. Jai Bhagwan Sharma and others), set aside the order of this Court and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. Thereafter, the writ petitiosn were dismissed on 2.8.2005. It was, however, made clear that candidates who had appeared, will be entitled to appear in fresh selection subject to eligibility and the Government will relax the condition of eligibility with regard to age. Against the said judgment, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and their appeal was heard with the appeal of candidates selected on earlier occasion, which selections were quashed. The Hon’ble 3 CWP No.16605 of 1999 Supreme Court set aside judgment of the High Court and remanded the matter without any discussion on the case of the present petitioners. The matter of other set of candidates selected in selections held in the year 1992 has been disposed of by a separate judgment today in CWP No.11526 of 1994 (Rajpal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others). 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners having been duly selected, were entitled to be appointed. Reliance has been placed on judgment dated 7.2.2007 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punajb and others v. Harcharan Singh and others, Civil Appeal No.3521 of 2006, judgment of this Court dated 31.1.2007 in Davender Kumar and others v. State and others, CWP No.16376 of 1999, wherein direction for appointment of Panchayat Secretaries was issued and judgment of Allahabad High Court in State of UP and another v. Rakesh Kumar, 2004(1) SCT 34. 9. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the State had financial difficulty in appointing the petitioners but it has no objection to eligibility of the selected candidates being 4 CWP No.16605 of 1999 relaxed with regard to the age in the fresh selections as and when held. 10. The question whether mere selection confers a right to be appointed, is well settled. Mere selection does not confer any right of appointment. Reference may be made to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330, wherein it was observed:- “14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate’s name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a hostile discrimination. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1612; Asha Kaul v. State of J&K (1993) 2 SCC 573; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal AIR 1996 SC 2340; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India (1996)10 SCC 742; Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar (1997) 3 SCC 198: AIR 1997 SC 2280; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar Paul AIR 1997 SC 3091, Vice-Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra (1997) 10 SCC 264; Punjab SEB v. Seema 1999 SCC (L&S) 629; All India SC & ST Employees’ Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen AIR 2001 SC 1851; Vinodan T. v. University of 5 CWP No.16605 of 1999 Calicut (2002) 4 SCC 726; S. Renuka v. State of A.P. AIR 2002 SC 1523 and Batiarani Gramiya Bank v. Pallab Kumar AIR 2003 SC 4248.)” 11. No doubt, no public authority can act arbitrarily and every decision has to be fair and reasonable, Mere change of Government may not by itself be a valid ground to with-hold appointments of selected candidates, who may have been lawfully selected. 12. The question is whether a mandamus ban be issued at this stage for appointing the petitioners. 13. We are of the view that having regard to long time which has elapsed since the selection of the petitioners i.e. about 10 years and the settled law that the petitioners do not have any indefeasible right to appointment merely on the basis of selection, no case is made out for issuance of mandamus for appointment of the petitioners. The judgments relied upon being on individual facts are distinguishable. However, the petitioners having been once selected and having regard to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the State, we direct that the petitioners be given relaxation in eligibility as and when fresh selections for the said posts are made. 6 CWP No.16605 of 1999 14. The petition is disposed of. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge February 11, 2009 (Jitendra Chauhan) ‘gs’ Judge 7