STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. versus MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 697 · Decided: 07-02-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
v. 
MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 7, 1994 
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Service Law: Selection and appointment-Candidates Wait- listed-
Claim for appointment--lfigh Court's direction that they be considered while 
making ad hoc appointments-Held: Enabling direction and hence valid. 
The appeliant-State requested the Subordinate Selection Committee 
for the recruitment of 11 Chief Inspectors from the resenred and general 
categories. Accordingly the Committee selected 11 candidates and placed 
four candidates in the waiting list. These four candidates approached the 
A 
B 
c 
H~~~ 
D 
The High Court took the view that no right to the post was created 
in favour of the candidates in the waiting list, but if the State, for 
administrative exigencies, filled up the post on ad hoc basis, it may 
appoint them in the order of merit. Against this order the State perferred 
the present appeal coni.ending that the list had elapsed by emux of time E 
of one year and so the candidates in the waiting list had no right to be 
appointed. 
Disposing of the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. If the appellants do not make any appointments to the 
posts, the question of considering the claims of the waiting list candidates 
does not arise. In the event of the appellants' choosing to make appoint-
ments even on ad hoc basis, then certainly the candidates in the waiting 
F 
list, though it lapsed, must be considered for appointment de hors the 
Rules which may not confer any right on them for future recruitment. It G 
is only an enabling direction to make ad-hoc appointment pending regular 
recruitment. (699-C] 
1.2. The respondents being the general candidates will be considered 
only against the quota reseved for general candidates. [699-D] 
H 
697 
698 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 896-898 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1_992 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 17600/1991, 2601 & 3741 of 1992. 
B 
Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellants. 
Madhava Reddy and Prem Malhotra for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
C 
Leave granted. 
1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals arise out of 
the order dated August 4, 1992 of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition 
No. 17600 of 1991 etc. The admitted facts are that the appellant-State had 
requisitioned to the Sub-ordinate Selection Committee to recruit by direct 
D recruitment 11 candidates to the post of Chief Inspectors. They have 
categorised the vacancies as under: -
6 posts for General Cendidafos 
E 
2 posts for Scheduled Caste 
1 post for Backward Class 
2 posts for Ex-serviceman 
While selecting 11 candidates the Committee also kept four more can-
F 
didates in the waiting list. The respondents stand at SI. Nos. 8 to 11. They 
admittedly belong to the general cetegory. 
2. The High Court while disposing of the matter held that keeping 
the candidates in the waiting list does not create any right in their favour 
G in the posts, but if the appellant for administrative exigencies fill up the 
post on ad hoc basis then it is open to the appellants to appoint the 
candidates waiting in the list in the order or merit. The contention of Ms. 
Indu Malhotra, learned counsel for the State, is that the list had elapsed 
by efflux of time of one year and the candidates who were waiting in the 
list have no right to claim for appointment. The High Court is, therefore, 
H not right in directing appointment of candidates in the waiting list in the 
) 
STATE OF HARYANA v. M.P. SHARMA 
699 
order of merit. It is true that the waiting list will be valid only for one year A 
and on the expiry thereof the waiting list shall stand lapsed; but what the 
High Court appears to have directed was that in the event of any ad hoc 
appointments being made to any existing vacancies, de hors the rule, the 
respondents will be considered for ad hoc appointment since their ·names 
are in the select list, provided the Government chooses to make such B 
appointment. 
3. We do not find any illegality in the observations of the High Court. 
It is one of option to the appellants. lt the appellants do not make any 
appointments to the posts, the question of considering the claims of the 
waiting list candidates does not arise. In the event of the appellants' C 
choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, then certainly the can-
didates in

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