PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus MALKAIT SINGH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 329 · Decided: 11-10-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PUNJAB ST A TE ELECTRICITY BOARD 
A 
v. 
MALKAIT SINGH 
OCTOBER I I, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.J 
B 
Service law : 
Appointment-Rehabilitation of families displaced by acquisition C?f their C 
land for power project-Name of one member of family included in list of 
persons recommended for appointment in the project on priority basis-
Subsequent change in policy for such appointment making him ineligible-
Thereafter a new post created-Held; He was not entitled to appointment to 
the new post as inclusion in select list did not vest any right in him and there 
was no question of applying the subsequently changed policy retrospectively- D 
It was especially so as he had also got compensation for his land-Jn absence 
of anything showing mala fide against him or that he was deliberately denied 
the appointment, it could not be held that he was discriminated against. 
Appellant-Board, for setting up a power project, acquired land 
inclusive of a tract of land less than two acres in size belonging to E 
respondent,.and paid compensation to all land owners thereof. With a view 
to rehabilitate persons who lost their lands because of acquisition, the 
appellant on 18.7.1994 decided to provide employment on rriority basis 
to one member of their family. Respondent was one of the persons whose 
name was included in the list of persons recommended for employment. F 
Number of people whose names were recommended were appointed 
against available vacancies. However, on 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1998, the 
appellant revised its policy in that only those whose lands acquired were 
more than two acres would be considered for benefit of employment on 
priority basis. It was also decided that no relaxation regarding 
qualification or age would be given in future. By office Order of appellant G 
dated 1.7.1998, a post of Homeopathic Physician was created and a 
committee constituted for selecting a suitable candidate for the same. 
Pursuant to this Officer Order, a letter was addressed to District 
Employment Officer asking to give suitable candidates for the said posts. 
329 
H 
330 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A Aggrieved by this letter, respondent filed a writ petition for quashing it 
with direction for his appointment to the post of Homeopathic Physician. 
High court allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. 
/ 
"·/. 
B 
Appellant inter alia contend<d that as the post of Homeopathic 
Physician was created on 1.7.1998 and was not available on 18.7.1994, 
respondent could not make any claim for the same that too after revision 
of policy on 2.6.1998; and that the respondent did not satisfy the eligibility 
conditions as per revised policy dated 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1998. 
Respondent contended that after his name was recommended for 
C appointment pursuant to Office Order dated 18.7.1994, he could not be 
denied appointment when several other from. the same list were appointed; 
that the policy in regard to the appointment on priority basis could not 
be varied subsequently to his disadvantage so as to take away his vested 
right; and that the appellant made unjustifiable discrimination in denying 
appointment to him. 
D 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD I. High Court committed an error in proceeding on the basis 
that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment and that could 
not have been taken aw.ay by the subsequent change in the policy. It is 
E settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list 
does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of 
appointment.(334-B( 
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (199113 SCC 47; All India SC and 
ST Employee's Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors., (20011 6 SCC 
F 380 and State o/Orissa and Ors. v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and Ors.,(20031 
10 sec 144, relied on. 
2.1. ltis not disputed that neither homoe~pathic d_ispensary at Lehra 
Mohabat power station, nor a post of Homeopathic Physician was available 
on 18.7.1994. The decision to set up a homeopathic dispensary at Lehra 
G 
. 
Mohabat and to create a post of Homeopathic Physician.in the dispensary 
H 
was taken only on 1.7.1998 long after the policy decision dated 18.7.1994 
. 
4 
I 
" 
' 
' 
• 
and subsequent to the change in the policy dated 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1988. 
This being the posiiion., the question of the respond~nt seeking appointment 
to the said post pursuant to policy decision of 18.7.1994 itself did not arise. 
(334-H; 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.