Civil Writ Petition No.2737 of 1995 v. State of Haryana & Ors.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner (In Civil Writ Petition No. 2737 of 1995). None for the petitioners (In Civil Writ Petitions No. 18005 of 1994 and No.4467 of 1995). Mr. Himanshu Raj, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2737 of 1995, 18005 of 1994 And 4467 of 1995 2 Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, three writ petitions viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 2737 of 1995 titled as “Ranbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Others”, Civil Writ Petition No. 18005 of 1994 titled as “Vijay Kumar v. State of Haryana and Others” and Civil Writ Petition No. 4467 of 1995 titled as “Surinder Singh v. State of Haryana and Others” shall be decided altogether. For reference, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 2737 of 1995. The case of the petitioners is that they were among those 13 persons who were selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) for appointment as Sectional Officers in the office of respondent No.2-Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. It is stated that out of 13 selectees, seven were given appointment, however, on account of one pretext or the other, six persons, including the three petitioners, were not given appointment letters, due to which they were left with no option except to approach this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer that a writ, in the nature of Mandamus, be issued directing respondent No.2 to issue appointment letters to the petitioners for their appointment as Sectional Officers, on the basis of recommendations and merit list, prepared by the Board. Briefly stated, the Board had issued an advertisement dated

7.7.1992 inviting applications for filling up of 13 posts of the Sectional Officers in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana. Out of these 13 posts, two were kept reserved for the candidates of Civil Writ Petitions No. 2737 of 1995, 18005 of 1994 And 4467 of 1995 3 General Category, three for Scheduled Caste, one for Backward Class and seven for Ex-Servicemen of Haryana. The petitioners were possessing the requisite qualification and were called for the interview. The petitioners were also the dependents of Ex-Servicemen. Grievance of the petitioners is that after the merit list was sent by the Board, the appointment letters were issued only to six persons, who were rated higher than the petitioners in the merit list, but no appointment letter was issued to any of the petitioners. Before the expiry of the selection panel, the petitioners have approached this Court and prayed that a direction be given to the Government to issue appointment letters to them. In response to the writ petition, the Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning,Haryana, has filed a written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. It is admitted therein that they had sent a demand for filling up 13 posts of Sectional Officers in the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana and in pursuance thereof, the selection had taken place. However, it is stated that on initiation of the administrative reforms by the departments, sample work study of various offices of the Department of Town and Country Panning, Haryana, was taken place and as per the recommendations, it was decided that certain offices required winding up and a number of posts in different cadres, in the department, were to be reduced. It is stated that due to curtailment of the posts, the petitioners could not be issued the appointment letters. Mr. C.M. Chopra, Advocate, appearing for the petitioner in Civil Writ Petitions No. 2737 of 1995, 18005 of 1994 And 4467 of 1995 4 Civil Writ Petition No. 2737 of 1995, has placed reliance upon Purushottam v. Chairman, M.S.E.B. and Another 2000(1) Recent Services Judgments 116 to contend that a duly selected person cannot be kept out of employment on account of untenable decision on the part of the employer. It is submitted that the selection cannot be taken away on the pretext that the life of selection panel has expired. To fortify this contention, further reliance has been placed on State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj 2000(2) Recent Services Judgments 46 to say that when the period of one year of validity of select list elapsed during the pendency of litigation, relief cannot be declined to the person who has approached the Court. There is no quarrel with the proposition propounded by Mr. Chopra on the basis of the judgments cited above. But the matter of fact is that the department, after holding the administrative survey, came to the conclusion that by adopting modern management practice, functioning of the department was to streamline and by doing so, it came to the conclusion that certain posts have been rendered surplus and the selected persons were not to be appointed. Mere selection vests no right in the petitioners to demand appointment. At this stage, Mr. Chopra has raised another argument that if that be so, then the selection list, which had provided reservation, had also to go change. A perusal of the select list reproduced in para No.4 of Civil Writ Petition No. 2737 of 1995 reveals that out of six persons, so appointed, three belonged to General Category, two belonged to Ex- Servicemen and one to Scheduled Caste. This Court will not disturb the Civil Writ Petitions No. 2737 of 1995, 18005 of 1994 And 4467 of 1995 5 appointment of those, who had joined the department in the year 1992. This Court is always of the view that the department, if so required, in later selection, can fill up the posts as per the reservation. Mr. Chopra has also relied upon communication dated

9.5.1995 (Annexure P5) issued by the department wherein it is submitted that there is no harm in case the appointment letters are issued to the selected persons. The communication (Annexure P5) was issued on 9.5.1995 to say that filling up of the posts will cause no harm not necessarily mean that it will be in the interest of the department also as it was well within its right to initiate the administrative reforms and streamline its functioning. With the observations made above, all the three writ petitions are disposed of, with no order as to costs. September 28, 2010 “DK” (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge