STATE OF PUNJAB versus RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 502 · Decided: 30-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 30, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] 
Public functionaries-Assistant Advocate General of State-Appoint-
ment-Select Panel of three candidates-First candidate appointed but later 
resigned-Second candidate showing no inclination to join service-Third 
C 
candidate not offered appointment and a service cadre appointed on the basis 
of seniority-cum-merit-Claim for appointment by third candidate in the select 
panel-Held, cannot be entertained as by appointment of first empanelled 
candidate, the select panel ceased to exist and outlived its utility. 
D 
E 
Appellant-State issued a notification inviting applications for ap-
pointment to the post of Assistant Advocate General of State. A select 
panel of three candidates was prepared by the C~mmittee. First candidate 
in the select list joined the services but subsequently resigned. The second 
candidate in the select panel expressed his inability to accept the appoint-
ment. Thereupon, appellant State appointed Respondent No. 2, serving in 
the office of Advocate General for the said post on the basis of seniority-
cum-merit. Respondent No.I, the third candidate in the select panel filed a 
writ petition claiming that he should have been offered appointment and 
not the second respondent. A Single Judge of High Court allowed the claim 
of respondent No. 1 relying upon the Government Circular dated 23.3.1957. 
F 
Appellant-State unsuccessfully filed an appeal before the,Division Bench of 
. High Court. Hence the present appeal • 
. 
On behalf of appellant-State it was contended that mere empanel-
ment 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 
G 
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. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : 1.1. Both the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of 
502 
STATE v. R.C. SHARMA [RAJU, J.] 
503 
High Court were not justified in directing the appellant-State to appoint 
respondent No. 1 as the Assistant Advocate General [505-B] 
1.2. The Notification issued inviting applications was in respect of 
one post and the first candidate in the select panel was not only offered but 
on his acceptance of offer came to be appointed and it was only subse-
quently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate 
the select panel <;eased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, 
no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been 
offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subse-
quent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other 
vacancies a~sing subsequently. The Circular Orders dated 22.3.1957 re-
lates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a 
panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the 
Circular Orders no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appoint-
ment after the expiry of six months. [505-C-D] 
Virender S. Hood and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Am:, AIR (1999) SC 
1701, held inapplicable. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURI~DICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8034 of 1994. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.94 of the Punjab and Haryana 
E 
High Court in L.P.A. No. 1339 of ,1991. 
Rajeev Kumar Sharma for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Arnita Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the C-0urt was delivered by 
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. 
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 Notifi-
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
504 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
cation 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 a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.