Supreme Court Allows State Appeal Against Appointment of Assistant Advocate General Due to Lack of Right from Select Panel. Claim for Appointment Invalidated as Panel Ceased to Exist After First Candidate's Resignation.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from an appeal by the State of Punjab against a High Court order directing the appointment of the first respondent as Assistant Advocate General. The State had issued a notification in August 1987 inviting applications for the post, resulting in a select panel where the first respondent was ranked third. The first candidate accepted the position but resigned shortly after, while the second candidate declined the offer. The State then appointed a candidate from the service cadre based on seniority-cum-merit. The first respondent claimed he should have been appointed instead of the second candidate, leading to his writ petition in the High Court, which was initially successful. The State appealed, arguing that the mere existence of a select panel did not guarantee appointment, and that the panel's utility ended with the first candidate's appointment. The court analyzed the legal principles surrounding appointment rights and administrative circulars, ultimately concluding that the first respondent had no legitimate claim to the position after the panel's dissolution. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed, with no costs awarded.

Headnote

A) Administrative Law - Right to Appointment - No inherent right to appointment from a select panel - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Mere empanelment does not confer a right to appointment under the State; the panel ceases to exist once the first candidate is appointed and resigns, thus no claim can be made for subsequent vacancies. Held that the first respondent had no legal standing to demand appointment after the panel's utility expired (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the first respondent had a right to be appointed as Assistant Advocate General after the resignation of the first candidate in the select panel.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal by the State of Punjab, dismissing the writ petition filed by the first respondent. The court held that the first respondent had no legal right to appointment after the select panel's utility had expired.

Law Points

  • Right to appointment
  • Select panel
  • Administrative Circulars
  • Public Service Commission
  • Legal standing
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2001 LawText (SC) (10) 81

Appeal (civil) 8034 of 1994

2001-10-30

S. Rajendra Babu, Doraiswamy Raju

STATE OF PUNJAB

RAGHBIR CHAND SHARMA & ANR.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against High Court order regarding appointment of Assistant Advocate General.

Remedy Sought

State of Punjab sought to overturn the High Court's order directing the appointment of the first respondent.

Filing Reason

The first respondent claimed entitlement to the position after the resignation of the first candidate in the select panel.

Previous Decisions

The High Court had allowed the writ petition of the first respondent, directing his appointment.

Issues

Whether the first respondent had a right to be appointed as Assistant Advocate General after the resignation of the first candidate in the select panel.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that mere empanelment does not confer a right to appointment and that the panel ceased to exist after the first candidate's appointment. The first respondent contended that he should have been offered the position after the second candidate declined.

Ratio Decidendi

The court established that mere empanelment in a select panel does not confer an inherent right to appointment, and that once the first candidate is appointed, the panel ceases to exist.

Judgment Excerpts

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. The panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the order of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition of the first respondent.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Non-Prosecution Due to Lack of Interest. Appellant's Disinterest in Prosecution Led to Dismissal of Civil Appeal.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Revenue's Authority to Withdraw Development Rebate in Income Tax Case — Clarifies Conditions for Rebate Withdrawal.