1. In the year 2002 in pursuance of policy decision of the State Government to make on spot recruitment in the State Police Organisation on spot selec tion process was conducted by the re spondents in which petitioner being one of the candidate qualified physical test. Provisional selection list was notified in which petitioner figured at Serial No. 10. Petitioner was not ultimately ap pointed which constrained him to file SWP no. 127/2006, which was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 25.09.2006. The operative part of the said order is reproduced as under: "In view of the above statement made by the learned AAG, this petition is admitted and disposed of with a di rection that respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner for considering his case for appointment against the post of Constable on the same analogy as has been done in the case of private respondent no. 4. This would be done within a period, of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by respondent no. 2. In case, any ad verse order is passed, then a speak ing order would be passed and the petitioner shall also be given a per sonal hearing. Writ petition disposed of along with connected CMPs, if any, in the matter indicated above". 2. State, feeling aggrieved of the said judgment, filed time barred Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent Bench vide order dated 19.04.2007 dismissed the Condonation of Delay application as well as LPA. 3. When the judgment was not imple mented, petitioner filed Contempt Pe tition COA (SW) No. 128/2007. In the contempt proceedings, affidavit was filed by Director General of Police stat ing that respondent no. 4 was appointed by Sh. Gopal Sharma, Ex-Director Gen eral of Police as Constable in the J&K Police purely on compassionate, grounds. Thereafter another affidavit was filed in the said contempt petition by the same authority and paragraph 3 thereof is reproduced as under: "That the case of the private respon dent namely Sh. Ravinder Singh S/o Naseeb Singh, who belonged to a poor family was received in the Police Hqrs in the year 2005 and accordingly the same was considered sympathetically and keeping in view the family status of the private respondent, he was ap pointed as Constable by the then DGP, vide PHQ Order no.
Ravinder Singh S/o Naseeb Singh, who belonged to a poor family was received in the Police Hqrs in the year 2005 and accordingly the same was considered sympathetically and keeping in view the family status of the private respondent, he was ap pointed as Constable by the then DGP, vide PHQ Order no. 2784 of 2005 dated 13.09.2005 in exercise of the powers vested in the DGP". 4. Contempt petition was disposed of by the Court vide order dated 07.05.2009. The relevant paragraph thereof is reproduced as under: "However, at this stage, Mr. S. C. Gupta, learned AAG, appearing for respondent made a statement at the bar that the respondent will have no objection in reconsidering the claim of the petition on the analogy of similarly situated official whose name has been referred to above. In view of the state ment made by Mr. S. C. Gupta, learned AAG, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall file a detailed representation before the respondent, who shall con sider and dispose of the same by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date a copy of this order along with the rep resentation, if any, is filed by the pe titioner. In case the petitioner is able to project before the authority con cerned that he is similarly situated to respondent no. 4 whose name has been mentioned above and who has been granted the benefit then the pe titioner shall also be accorded the same treatment". 5. Representation was filed by peti tioner in which he mentioned that one Ravinder Singh, whose name appeared in the select list has been appointed as Constable in District Police Kathua. Copy of the appointment order was also enclosed with the representation. DGP considered the representation of the petitioner in pursuance of the orders passed by the Court and vide Order No. 3431 of 2009 dated 25/09/2009 rejected the same. 6. Petitioner, being aggrieved of the said order, has challenged the same in this writ petition. 7. On notice issued, official respon dents have filed objections, 8. Heard learned counsel for the par ties. Considered the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, who had qualified physical test and was shown to be selected and figured at Serial No. 10 of the selection list, has been ille gally and arbitrarily not appointed.
7. On notice issued, official respon dents have filed objections, 8. Heard learned counsel for the par ties. Considered the matter. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner, who had qualified physical test and was shown to be selected and figured at Serial No. 10 of the selection list, has been ille gally and arbitrarily not appointed. Learned counsel also submitted that one Ravinder Singh (respondent no. 4 herein) is shown to be appointed on compassionate grounds, but the com passion referred to is that he belongs to poor family. Learned counsel also submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, respondent no. 5 has been appointed who had also partici pated in the selection process along with petitioner who has been subjected to invidious discrimination, inasmuch as, his claim has been wrongly rejected. 10. Mr. Basotra, learned AAG appear ing for respondents submitted that be sides others, physical measurement of the petitioner and private respondents was taken in the month of July, 2002 but matter could not proceed further because of enforcement of Model Code of Conduct in view of the assembly elec tion of 2002. Learned counsel also sub mitted that petitioner does not form a class with the respondent no. 4 as his appointment has been made purely on sympathetic consideration for the rea son that he belongs to poor family. 11. Learned counsel submitted that claim of the petitioner has been con sidered by the competent authority and after considering the matter in its en tirety reasoned order has been passed. Learned counsel submitted that ap pointment in the respondent depart ment is to be made strictly in accor dance with rules and petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner can not base his claim for appointment, which has been made in favour of the private respondent, as in the event the Court finds that the appointment of pri vate respondent is illegal then that is to be quashed. 12. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. It is not in dispute that petitioner has not participated in the selection process. It is also not in dispute that petitioner physical measurement was taken.
12. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. It is not in dispute that petitioner has not participated in the selection process. It is also not in dispute that petitioner physical measurement was taken. The plea of the petitioner, as projected in the writ petition, is that he figured at Serial No. 10 of the tentative selection list is not denied in the objection which is supported by an affidavit. The only ground on which appointment has been denied to the petitioner is that matter could not proceed further in view of the enforcement of Model Code of Conduct at that point of time. 13. Petitioner, in view of the aforestated facts, was selected candi date and was to be appointed on the post of Constable. The. selection, process was halted in its tracks because of enforce ment of Model Code of Conduct. It is true that selected candidate does not get any vested right for being appointed on a post. But when exercise is initiated for making selection to a post, then that selection process is to be brought to its logical conclusion either by appointing successful candidates on the post for which selection process was initiated or for some valid reasons appointment may be denied to the candidate. Selec tion process is initiated in pursuance of a decision of an authority to fill up a post. All eligible candidates are sub jected to the selection process to find out the meritorious and suitable can didate to whom appointment would be offered. The selection process without there being any valid reason, cannot be truncated in law and left mid-way. The ground on which the appointment is denied to the petitioner after having been tentatively selected is that process could not be carried forward because of enforcement of the model code of con duct. It is not the claim of the respon dents that the petitioner could not se cure requisite merit for being appointed on the post of Constable. A duty was cast on the respondents to carry forward selection process, after model code of conduct was over and offer appointment to the selected candidate. In the facts and circumstances of this case leaving the selection mid way, is held to be not justified. Respondents were duty bound to offer appointment to the selected can didate after the model code of the con duct was over.
In the facts and circumstances of this case leaving the selection mid way, is held to be not justified. Respondents were duty bound to offer appointment to the selected can didate after the model code of the con duct was over. Petitioner has been con tinuously pursuing his claim either be fore the Court or before the authorities. Respondents were duty bound in law to take a decision in the aforestated back ground. Unfortunately, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he is not similarly circum stanced with Mr. Ravinder Singh who is claimed to have been appointed on the compassionate grounds because he come from humble surroundings. 14. A post available in the State and with its authorities is a public property and all eligible candidates have right to seek consideration for being selected and appointed on a post when same is notified by the State and its authorities after declaring their intention to fill up the same. This mandate is contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of In dia. When State and its authorities make appointment on a post, presump tion is that said appointment is legal unless same is challenged in appropri ate proceedings and is declared to be illegal by the Court of law. There can be another ground also for undoing the wrong committed by the authorities viz. the authority itself can rescind and re voke its order after recording reasons that order was illegal. In this case noth ing is stated in the objections that at any point of time any effort was made to rescind order passed in favour of the private respondents. Presumption is that orders passed in favour of the pri vate respondents are legal. Petitioner was to be given same treatment in view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents during the con tempt proceedings and petitioner could not be denied appointment in the man ner same has been denied to him in terms of impugned order. 15. The respondents have not acted in just manner in denying appoint ment to petitioner. 16. For the above stated reasons, this petition is allowed in the following man ner: