Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 227 (GAU)

Joseph Syiemlieh v. State of Meghalaya and Ors.

2002-05-24

N.SURJAMANI SINGH

body2002
N.Surjamani SINGH, J- In this writ application, the petitioner, Dr Joseph Syiemlieh, has made a prayer for quashing the impugned second advertisement dated 29.6.1999 as in Annexure-VIII to the writ petition, and the impugned interview call letter dated 28.7.1999 for personal interview for the post of Project Officer/Project Technical Officer of the District Society, West Khasi Hills, Nongstoin, held on 10.8.1999 at 11.00 a.m. sharp (at the relevant time) as in Annexure-IX to the writ petition coupled with a prayer for directing the respondent-authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Project Officer in the establishment of respondent No. 3 by contending, inter alia, that in terms of the first advertisement dated 21.2.1999 published on 25.2.1999 for appointment to the post of Project Officer, the petitioner applied for the same and he was selected and recommended along with one Dr. S.N. Goswami. The name of said Dr. Goswami appeared at serial No. 1 and the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 2 in the select list vide notification dated 19.3.1999 issued by the competent authority as in Annexure-II to the writ petition, but Dr. Goswami declined to join the post vide his letter dated 15.7.1999. It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 3 again issued a second advertisement illegally on 29.6.1999 which was published on 2.7.1999 for selection and appointment to the said post of Project Officer to which the petitioner made protest by filing representation dated 6.7.1999 to respondent No. 3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, Khawkyila Community Resource Management Society (District Society), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills, Meghalaya, seeking clarification of the said second advertisement. Apart from that, the petitioner further made a request by filing another representation dated 16.7.1999 requesting the authority to appoint him to the said post of Project Officer, but no reply was ever made from the end of the authority concerned. The petitioner further sought for reply of his earlier representations by submitting another fresh letter dated 28.7.1999. But the petitioner received the impugned call letter dated 28.7.1999 (Annexure-IX) for personal interview for selection to the post of Project Officer. The petitioner, however, did not appear before the Selection Board for interview on 10.8.1999 and he preferred to file the present writ petition before this Court, 2. But the petitioner received the impugned call letter dated 28.7.1999 (Annexure-IX) for personal interview for selection to the post of Project Officer. The petitioner, however, did not appear before the Selection Board for interview on 10.8.1999 and he preferred to file the present writ petition before this Court, 2. Mr R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that instead of making second advertisement, the authority ought to have given appointment to the petitioner to the post of Project Officer as he was duly selected and recommended by the Selection Board. In other words, the petitioner was the second selected candidate after Dr. S.N. Goswami who declined to accept the appointment, and the petitioner had not forfeited his right to be appointed as Project Officer in terms of the result/select list dated 19.3.1999 as in Annexure-II to the writ petition. Learned counsel went on to contend that one Smti Pynhun Suchiang who had been selected by the Selection Board in pursuance of the impugned second advertisement also did not join and, therefore, an official of the Regional Office, namely, Smti DV Massar, has been temporarily authorised to discharge the function of Project Officer in order to carry on the work at the project site. 3. The case of the writ petitioner was resisted by the respondents concerned by filing counter-affidavit. Mr S.R. Sen, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms P.D. Buzarbarua, appearing for the respondents, contended that the writ petitioner has no indefeasible right to claim for his appointment to the post of Project Officer merely on the ground that he was selected and recommended for the said post and that his name appeared at serial No. 2 in the select list inasmuch as the first selected and recommended candidate declined to accept the said appointment or join the post. There was, therefore, no infirmity in making the impugned second advertisement in pursuance of which the writ petitioner also applied though he did not appear for personal interview before the Selection Board on 10.8.1999. In other words, the petitioner conceded to the said impugned second advertisement because he applied for the post in terms of the said impugned second advertisement. There was, therefore, no infirmity in making the impugned second advertisement in pursuance of which the writ petitioner also applied though he did not appear for personal interview before the Selection Board on 10.8.1999. In other words, the petitioner conceded to the said impugned second advertisement because he applied for the post in terms of the said impugned second advertisement. The claim of the writ petitioner in this writ petition is barred by the principle of estoppel and waiver and non-acceptance of appointment by Smti Pynhun Suchiang to the said post of Project Officer in terms of the impugned second advertisement would not bestow a legal right on the petitioner for his appointment to the post in question, Mr S.R. Sen argued. 4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was selected and recommended by the Selection Board along with Dr. S.N. Goswami in terms of earlier advertisement and when the first selected and recommended candidate, namely, Dr. S.N. Goswami declined to accept the appointment, the petitioner who was the second selected and recommended candidate was not given appointment to the said post of Project Director. But the fact remains that in pursuance of the impugned second advertisement, though the petitioner applied for the said post, he did not appear before the Selection Board for personal interview on 10.8.1999, and in the said selection Smti Pynhun Suchiang was selected who also did not join and, therefore, an official of Regional Office, namely, Smti D.V. Massar has been allowed to discharge the duties of Project Officer temporarily in the exigencies of service. 5. Mere inclusion in the select list, a candidate has no indefeasible right. It is also well-settled that candidates have vested right to be considered by the Selection Board or the DPC as per advertisement unless a specific condition is made. But, in the instant case, the petitioner applied for the post of Project Officer in terms of impugned second advertisement, he did not appear for personal interview on 10.8.1999 before the Selection Board. Thus, a question arises whether his case should be considered? The answer is 'no', as the writ petitioner had no vested right to be considered in terms of the impugned second advertisement. 6. Thus, a question arises whether his case should be considered? The answer is 'no', as the writ petitioner had no vested right to be considered in terms of the impugned second advertisement. 6. The petitioner has been claiming that he has not forfeited his right to be appointed as Project Officer as per the select list dated 19.3.1999 as in Annexure-II to the writ petition by contending that since the first candidate Dr. S.N. Goswami declined to join the post, the petitioner should be given appointment to the said post by the authority concerned. 7. The legal issue involved in the present case has already been settled by the Apex Court and also by this Court. For better appreciation, I hereby recall a recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Punjab- Vs-Raghbir Chand Sharma, reported in 2001 AIR SCW4337. The Apex Court in that case held thus: ".... As rightly contended for the appellant-State, 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 subsequently that he came to resign. With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased 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 subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently...." 8. It is also well-settled that mere empanelment 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 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. Therefore, the writ petitioner has no indefeasible right to claim for appointment to the post of Project Officer on the basis of his claim and/or averments made in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petitioner has no indefeasible right to claim for appointment to the post of Project Officer on the basis of his claim and/or averments made in the writ petition. This Court need not go more into depth as suffice is made with the above observations to dismiss this writ petition. 9. In the result, this present writ petition is dismissed. Considering however the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 10. Despite dismissal of this writ petition, I am constrained to make the following order and direction. 11. The respondent-authorities are directed to fill up the post of Project Officer under their establishment by making fresh advertisement in terms of the related Service Rules adopted by the authorities within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. It is also made clear that the writ petitioner and other eligible candidates shall be allowed to apply for the same.