Rajbir v. State of Haryana & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 May 2012
- Bench
- AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present : Mr. K.S.Banyana, Advocate, for the petitioner. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has approached this Court submitting that he had, in response to an advertisement dated 06.07.2003, applied for the posts of Auditor (Field) and Auditor (Head Quarter) in the Food and Supplies Department, Haryana. Interviews for the said posts were also held on 17.12.2004 and the petitioner performed exceptionally well and was quite sure of his selection. Result was not declared as the Code of Conduct came into force on 18.12.2004. Thereafter, without assigning any reason, Government of Haryana CWP No. 8146 of 2012 2 had withdrawn the requisition, which has been sent to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 2. Thereafter, a fresh advertisement was issued and some persons, in pursuance to that advertisement, have been appointed in the years 2006 to 2008 but the process of selection, which was initiated vide advertisement dated 06.07.2003, has not been given effect to. Petitioner contends that the action of the respondents is not in accordance with law and, therefore, a direction be issued to the respondents to declare the result of the interviews. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, who has argued on the above lines, and have gone through the records of the case. The facts, as stated by the petitioner and recorded above, themselves clarify the position that although advertisement was issued and the interview was held but prior to the declaration of the result, the Government decided to withdraw the requisition sent to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. Once a requisition has been withdrawn and the same is not revived subsequently, the selection process is stalled which has the effect of negating the result of the advertisement and the steps taken in furtherance thereto. In the present case, the result of the selection was also not announced and as per the settled proposition of law, even the selected candidates do not have any right for appointment. That being so, the contentions, as raised by the petitioners, do not carry any weight CWP No. 8146 of 2012 3 and, therefore, the present writ petition cannot succeed. Dismissed. May 03, 2012 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.