Non-Availability Of Post Not Ground To Deny Appointment To Candidate Wronged By State's Arbitrary Action: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Department's failure to act promptly won't justify denial of post citing expiry of waitlist.
The Punjab and Haryana has said that non-availability of post cannot be a ground to deny appointment to the applicant who has been wronged only on account of arbitrary action of State.Despite being duly selected pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2019, the petitioner, whose waiting was cleared, was not appointed. The education department, "without any justification," delayed the...
The Punjab and Haryana has said that non-availability of post cannot be a ground to deny appointment to the applicant who has been wronged only on account of arbitrary action of State.
Despite being duly selected pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2019, the petitioner, whose waiting was cleared, was not appointed. The education department, "without any justification," delayed the procedure, causing the validity period of the waiting list to expire.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya while imposing a cost of Rs.50,000 on Haryana Government's education department directed the state and other respondents to offer appointment to petitioner-candidate on a tabla player's post.
The Court was hearing a plea of Sanjeev Kumar seeking direction the the Haryana Government and other authorities to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Tabla Player being at sr. no.1 in the waiting list, against the post lying vacant, with all consequential benefits.
It was submitted that the two of the recommended candidates did not join the post, and the Department was required to cancel their candidature soon thereafter.
However, it was done after a period of over eight months vide public notice issued in 2020. Later, candidates were called for verification of documents but "the letter of appointment was not issued to the petitioner, presumably on the ground that validity of the main selection list as well as the waiting list had expired by that time," added the counsel.
He further submitted that, the extension of validity period of waiting lists, which had expired, was sought by the Department. Accepting the request, the General Administration Department, extended the validity of these lists for another period of six months, i.e., upto 17.12.2020. In spite of that the petitioner was not offered the appointment, nor his representation to that effect, was responded to.
After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that "it was only on account of the Departmental lethargy that the appointment could not be offered to him within time."
It referred to Ritu v. State of Haryana (2013) to underscore that, a waitlisted candidate cannot be prevented from being appointed only on account of the Department's inability to promptly cancel the offer of appointment given to another candidate which was not accepted, resulting in validity of the waiting list being over.
Justice Dahiya observed that, "being in the order of merit after the cancellation, the right to be appointed accrued to the petitioner on 18.03.2020, which could not have been taken away on account of any subsequent event, including delay in offering the appointment. Besides, the waiting list was valid till that time, and the period stood extended up to 17.12.2020 also. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Department to offer appointment to him."
"Undisputedly, the validity of select/waiting lists stood extended up to 17.12.2020, vide notice dated 09.02.2021. It was for the period during which appointment was required to be offered to the petitioner in recognition of his right, and consequently its having been granted/received after the period ended, was inconsequential," the Court noted further.
In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and directed the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post of Tabla Player, from the date other selected candidates in the selection list were appointed, with all consequential benefits; he will be entitled to the benefits notionally from that date of appointment and actually from the date of joining.
The Court also rejected the State counsel's argument that the post might not be available with the respondents to offer appointment to the petitioner.
"There is no such assertion in the written statement, nor has any latest instruction to this effect been referred to by the learned counsel. Nevertheless, non-availability of post cannot be a ground to deny appointment to the petitioner who has been wronged only on account of arbitrary action of respondents," the judge said.
In case the post in not vacant, the first post getting vacant now onwards shall be offered to the petitioner within two weeks of its falling vacant, added the Court.
Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate and
Mr. Parth Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.
Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 227