LPA No. 1119 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. LPA No. 1119 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.03.2010 Rajvir Singh ....Appellant. Versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jitender Baidwan, and Mr. R.B. Malik, Advocate for the appellant. ... Alok Singh, J. 1. Present intra-Court appeal/LPA is filed assailing the order dated 17.8.2009 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing CWP No.5774 of 2007. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that 2127 posts of Social Studies Master/Mistress were advertised in the year 1999. The petitioner being eligible applied for the said post. After the written test and interview, final result was declared on 5.12.2004; petitioner was at serial No.7 in the waiting list; nine candidates of general category from the original list had LPA No. 1119 of 2009 2 not accepted offer of appointment; candidates from the waiting list were not appointed. The petitioner had earlier filed CWP No.13101 of 2005, which was disposed of on 16.9.2005. This Court has passed following order on 16.9.2005: - “The selection took place in the year 2004 pursuant to an advertisement for the year 1999. It is the case of the petitioners that some candidates who were on merits had not accepted appointment with the result about 136 vacancies were available against which the petitioners could be adjusted. We accordingly dispose of this matter with a direction that the respondents shall consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment in the light of Vinay Singh Vs. State of Haryana 1993(1) SLR 166, Gopi Chand and another Vs. State of Haryana and others 1996(1) AIJ 148, Raghbir Chand Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and another RSJ 1992(1) 195 and Sonika D/o Raj Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana and others 2005 (4) SLR 338 within a period of three months from the date that a certified copy of this order is supplied to them. Dasti order.” 3. Reply was filed by respondents No.1 to 3 and it was pointed out that number of posts advertised were reduced to 1270. It was further alleged that the Commission informed the Directorate that the merit position of respondent No.4 has become No.661-A in place of 618 and that of the petitioner 654-A in place of 619. The petitioner was already shown at Sr. No.8 in the waiting list. It was pointed out that Nirmala Devi was offered appointment as the candidate at waiting list No.612 did not join. Subsequently, action has been taken to dispense with her services after the LPA No. 1119 of 2009 3 change of her merit position in the merit list as aforementioned. 4. After the order passed by Division Bench of this Court (supra), matter was considered. However, no appointment was given to the petitioner and respondent No.4 was wrongly given appointment. Feeling aggrieved from the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner, he preferred the writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge vide impugned order. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 6. Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the moment it is admitted to the respondents that vacancy is still existing, appointment letter should have been issued in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that after the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.9.2005, nothing was left to be considered and appointment letter ought to have been issued to the petitioner. 7. We find no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is settled position of law that even a selected candidate has no legal right to get appointment. It is for the authorities either to appoint the selected candidate or to keep the seat vacant. Undisputedly, services of respondent No.4, who is alleged to be after the petitioner in the waiting list, have already been dispensed with. She is no more in service. Undisputedly, no person after the petitioner in the waiting list has been given appointment. In view of the above, no mandamus can be issued in favour of the petitioner against the respondents to appoint the petitioner. LPA No. 1119 of 2009 4 8. We have carefully perused the order dated 16.9.2005 passed by Division Bench of this Court. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that this Court has nowhere directed the authorities to appoint the petitioner. This Court has only issued direction to consider the case of the petitioner. To consider does not mean to appoint. As observed above, a candidate either in select list or in waiting list does not have any legal right to be appointed. Hence, view taken by learned Single Judge requires no interference. 9. The appeal is devoid of merit and hence is dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge ( Adarsh Kumar Goel ) Judge 04.03.2010 sk.