2001 JTR(SC) 1516
2001 AIR(SC) 2900 ; 2001 AIR(SCW) 4337 ; 2001 3 CLR 1050 ; 2001 91 FLR 1217 ; 2001 1 JCR(SC) 39 ; 2002 1 JCR(SC) 39 ; 2001 9 JT 266 ; 2001 3 KLT(SN) 115 ; 2002 1 LLN 696 ; 2001 4 RSJ 758 ; 2001 7 Scale 511 ; 2002 1 SCC 113 ; 2002 SCC(L&S) 104 ; 2001 SCR 502 ; 2002 2 SCT 234 ; 2002 1 SLR 97 ; 2002 1 UPLBEC 388 ; 2001 KHC 986 ; 2001 8 Supreme 33
2001(8) Supreme 33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Haryana High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.
State of Punjab -Appellant
versus
Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8034 of 1994
Decided on 30-10-2001
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Amita Gupta, Advocate.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
Where notification was for one post and panel of 3 was made for it and the first candidate in panel was appointed and it was only subsequently that he came to resign, the panel ceased to exist and no one in panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment for vacancy arising subsequently.
Act Referred :SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory framework governing appointment to the service cadre under the Service Law informed the analysis of the claims regarding the selection panel and appointment to the post of Assistant Advocate General. The court examined the administrative process and the hierarchy of selections as prescribed, determining that the statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to such appointments did not confer a vested right upon the petitioner that could be enforced by writ jurisdiction in this instance. The provisions relating to the powers of the State in making appointments from a panel and the precedence of service cadre promotions were central to the interpretation of the impugned order.
(B) The core legal principles delineated include that mere empanelment in a select list does not confer any legally enforceable right to appointment to a post under the State, and that the State retains discretionary power in making such appointments. Furthermore, where a candidate from a select panel declines an appointment, the State is entitled to fill the vacancy through promotion from within the service cadre in accordance with seniority-cum-merit, and the courts will not interfere with such administrative decisions absent clear illegality.
Facts of the case:
The State of Punjab invited applications for the post of Assistant Advocate General and constituted a select panel of three candidates. The first candidate accepted the appointment and joined service, then resigned. The second candidate, who was the next in panel, declined the appointment expressing inability to accept. Consequently, the State filled the vacancy by promoting the second respondent from the service cadre. The first respondent, being the third candidate, challenged the appointment of the second respondent, claiming he should have been offered the position.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge erred in concluding that the first respondent was entitled to the appointment based on an administrative circular from 1957. The Division Bench correctly set aside the order, finding that the State had acted within its powers in filling the vacancy from the service cadre after the panel candidate declined the offer. The court held that the petitioner had no enforceable right to be appointed over a senior officer from the cadre.
Issues:
Whether a candidate ranked third in a select panel has a legal right to be appointed when the first and second candidates respectively accept and decline the offer, and whether the High Court can direct the State to appoint him over a senior officer from the service cadre.
Ratio Decidendi:
Mere inclusion in a select panel does not create a legal right to appointment, and the State is competent to fill a vacancy by promoting a senior officer from the service cadre where the panel member declines, with such administrative decision being non-justiciable.
(A) The relevant statutory framework governing appointment to the service cadre under the Service Law informed the analysis of the claims regarding the selection panel and appointment to the post of Assistant Advocate General. The court examined the administrative process and the hierarchy of selections as prescribed, determining that the statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to such appointments did not confer a vested right upon the petitioner that could be enforced by writ jurisdiction in this instance. The provisions relating to the powers of the State in making appointments from a panel and the precedence of service cadre promotions were central to the interpretation of the impugned order.
(B) The core legal principles delineated include that mere empanelment in a select list does not confer any legally enforceable right to appointment to a post under the State, and that the State retains discretionary power in making such appointments. Furthermore, where a candidate from a select panel declines an appointment, the State is entitled to fill the vacancy through promotion from within the service cadre in accordance with seniority-cum-merit, and the courts will not interfere with such administrative decisions absent clear illegality.
Facts of the case:
The State of Punjab invited applications for the post of Assistant Advocate General and constituted a select panel of three candidates. The first candidate accepted the appointment and joined service, then resigned. The second candidate, who was the next in panel, declined the appointment expressing inability to accept. Consequently, the State filled the vacancy by promoting the second respondent from the service cadre. The first respondent, being the third candidate, challenged the appointment of the second respondent, claiming he should have been offered the position.
Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge erred in concluding that the first respondent was entitled to the appointment based on an administrative circular from 1957. The Division Bench correctly set aside the order, finding that the State had acted within its powers in filling the vacancy from the service cadre after the panel candidate declined the offer. The court held that the petitioner had no enforceable right to be appointed over a senior officer from the cadre.
Issues:
Whether a candidate ranked third in a select panel has a legal right to be appointed when the first and second candidates respectively accept and decline the offer, and whether the High Court can direct the State to appoint him over a senior officer from the service cadre.
Ratio Decidendi:
Mere inclusion in a select panel does not create a legal right to appointment, and the State is competent to fill a vacancy by promoting a senior officer from the service cadre where the panel member declines, with such administrative decision being non-justiciable.
JUDGMENT
Raju, J.-This appeal by the State of Punjab has been filed against the Order dated 24.1.94 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the order of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court, allowing CWP No. 13347 of 1989 filed by the first respondent herein and as a consequence thereof, directing the appellant-State to appoint him as the Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
2. The indisputable and relevant facts, necessary to be noticed for an appreciation of claims of the parties, are that the State of Punjab by a Notification issued in August, 1987 invited applications from amongst practising advocates of Punjab and Haryana High Court and Law Officers of Government of Punjab for a post of Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, in the scale of Rs. 2000-2300; that from amongst the applicants, who responded, a select panel of three candidates was made by the Committee, which interviewed them in which one M.L. Agnihotri was arrayed as No. 1, one Baldev Singh as No. 2 and the first respondent as No. 3. The first in the panel, M.L. Agnihotri accepted the same and on being appointed, he joined the service also on 16.10.1987, but subsequently resigned on 13.11.1987. The second candidate, Baldev Singh, on the select panel also on his own, by his letter dated 13.1.1988 expressed that he was not interested and even if offered his inability to accept the appointment. Thereupon, the State took a decision to fill up the post from the service cadre by promotion and that is how the second respondent, who was serving in the Office of Advocate General, was on the basis of seniority-cum-merit appointed and he also retired on 31.7.1988. The grievance of the first respondent as writ petitioner was that he being the third candidate in the select panel, should have been offered the appointed and not the second respondent. Though representations had been made by the first respondent asserting such a claim, the same were considered and rejected. It was at that stage the first respondent approached the High Court and the learned Single Judge was of the view that after the candidate at Serial No. 2 in the select panel declined to accept the appointment, the first respondent should have been offered the same and relying upon an administrative Circular issued by the State Government on 23.3.1957, the learned Single Judge allowed the claim, as noticed earlier. The challenge made by the State in appeal before a Division Bench having failed, this appeal has been filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. Strong reliance has been placed by the appellant on some decisions of this Court, wherein it has been held that mere empanelment in a select list does not confer upon such a person in the panel any right to get appointed to a post under the State and if for good and valid reason, the State does not choose to appoint the said person in the panel, no right inheres in such a person to seek a mandate from the Courts for an appointment. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent placed strong reliance upon a decision of this Court, to which one of us (Rajendra Babu, J.) was a member, reported in Virender S. Hood and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1701, wherein it was held relying upon the Circular Orders dated 22.3.1957 that when vacancies existing were filled in by appointing candidates recommended by the Public Service Commission, further vacancies arising and available within six months from the receipt of recommendation of Public Service Commission
4. For all the reasons started above, we are unable to approve the judgment under appeal. The appeal is allowed. The writ petition filed by the first respondent in t;he High Court will stand dismissed. No. Costd.
(N.K.R)
Appeal allowed.
****************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma, 2001(8) Supreme 33
00029