CWP No.3213 of 1989 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 3213 of 1989 Date of Decision: 23 - 12 – 2008 Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner v. Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board ....Respondents and another CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Meenakshi Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vipan Bali, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed by one Amarjit Singh. He has prayed that he had applied in pursuance of advertisement published in `The Tribune' dated 26.2.1988 against one vacancy of Mistri (Village Oil Industry) in the scale of Rs.400-600/-. Petitioner claim that he belong to Scheduled Caste and also passed Higher Secondary examination in Second Division. Petitioner has averred that he was selected and his name was sent to District Magistrate, Ludhiana for verification of his antecedents vide correspondence Annexure P-3. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that appointment of Nirmal Singh – respondent No.2 be quashed and petitioner be appointed in pursuance of his selection, Annexure P-3. CWP No.3213 of 1989 [2] Notice of motion was issued. A written statement has been filed by the respondent – Punjab Khadi and Village Industries Board. They have specifically denied that any appointment was given to the petitioner. They further stated that post is still lying vacant and no appointment letter was issued to the respondent No.2. The stand of Mr.Vikas Bali is that respondent-Board has filed Civil Misc.No.15246 of 2005 and in the affidavit submitted by the Member Secretary, it has been stated therein that due to acute financial difficulties, it was decided not to fill up any vacant post. A question has been posed to counsel for the petitioner, whether a communication of the Government to the Deputy Commissioner that in pursuance of selection, antecedents of the petitioner be verified, gives right to the candidate that he must be appointed on the post? To answer this, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Vishnu Dutt and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, 1995(4) RSJ 639 to contend that in that case appointments were not given after selection as recruitment ban was imposed and this Court had held that once recruitment ban had been lifted, selectees must be given appointment. She has further relied upon a judgment of this Court in Rajinder Kumar and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1988(5) SLR 685 to contend that where verification of antecedents and medical examination was completed, appointment letter was not issued on the ground that originally requisition was for 29 posts but subsequently 79 posts were required to be filled up by way of fresh advertisement. The Court held that this plea of the employer is untenable. She has further relied upon on a Division Bench judgment in Yadvender Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 1989(5) SLR 695 to contend that CWP No.3213 of 1989 [3] where verification of character antecedents was completed and selected persons were deputed to undergo training, there one selectee could not be denied appointment that his height was less. These judgments are of no help to the petitioner. In the present case, neither there was any recruitment ban, nor any fresh appointment was proposed or petitioner has been denied appointment letter on the ground that his eligibility suffer in any way. In the present case, due to financial mis-management and acute shortage of funds, employer has decided not to proceed ahead with the selection. A Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others v. Gurkirpal Singh, 1990(1) PLR 102 has held that right under the Constitution does not extend to a selected person to be appointed to any anticipated vacancy. Relevant portion of para 5 of the judgment read as under:- “The equality which is guaranteed under the Constitution is the opportunity to make an application for a post and to be considered for it on merits. The right does not extend to being actually appointed. The process of selection and selection for the purpose of recruitment against anticipated vacancies does not create a right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. No one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. ....” I am of the view that judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, no where lay law that any person whose antecedents have been sent for verification must be appointed. They are the judgments on facts of those cases. Once the respondent-Board has denied that respondent No.2 has not been given appointment, petitioner cannot seek mandamus that he CWP No.3213 of 1989 [4] must be appointed to the post. Therefore, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) December 23, 2008. JUDGE RC