Holding

Inclusion in the select list did not vest any right to appointment, the Board’s revised policy was valid and could be applied, and the respondent was ineligible, so the High Court’s order was set aside.

Summary

The Punjab State Electricity Board acquired land for a power project and, in 1994, announced a scheme to give priority employment to one member of each displaced family. The respondent’s name was placed on the list, but the Board later revised the policy, limiting eligibility to families whose land exceeded two acres and removing relaxations on age and qualifications. A new post of Homeopathic Physician was created in 1998, after the policy change, and the respondent sought appointment to that post. The Supreme Court held that mere inclusion in a select list does not confer a vested right to appointment, that the Board’s policy change could be applied prospectively and was not retrospective, and that the respondent did not meet the revised eligibility criteria. Consequently, the High Court’s order directing his appointment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether inclusion of a candidate’s name in a select list creates a vested right to appointment.
Whether a subsequent change in the Board’s employment policy can be applied retrospectively to deny appointment.
Whether the respondent satisfied the eligibility conditions (land size, age, qualifications) under the revised policy.
Whether the denial of appointment amounted to unlawful discrimination.

Subjects

service lawappointmentrehabilitationland acquisitionvested rightdiscriminationpolicy changeemployment prioritycompensation

Judgment

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD A
v.
MALKAIT SINGH

OCTOBER I I, 2004

[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.J B

Service law :

Appointment-Rehabilitation offamilies displaced by acquisition C?f their C
land for power project-Name of one member of family included in list of
persons recommended for appointment in the project on priority basis-
Subsequent change in policy for such appointment making him ineligible-
Thereafter a new post created-Held; He was not entitled to appointment to
the new post as inclusion in select list did not vest any right in him and there
was no question of applying the subsequently changed policy retrospectively- D
It was especially so as he had also got compensation for his land-Jn absence
of anything showing mala fide against him or that he was deliberately denied
the appointment, it could not be held that he was discriminated against.

Appellant-Board, for setting up a power project, acquired land
inclusive of a tract of land less than two acres in size belonging to E
respondent,.and paid compensation to all land owners thereof. With a view
to rehabilitate persons who lost their lands because of acquisition, the
appellant on 18.7.1994 decided to provide employment on rriority basis
to one member of their family. Respondent was one of the persons whose
name was included in the list of persons recommended for employment. F
Number of people whose names were recommended were appointed
against available vacancies. However, on 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1998, the
appellant revised its policy in that only those whose lands acquired were
more than two acres would be considered for benefit of employment on
priority basis. It was also decided that no relaxation regarding
qualification or age would be given in future. By office Order of appellant G
dated 1.7.1998, a post of Homeopathic Physician was created and a
committee constituted for selecting a suitable candidate for the same.
Pursuant to this Officer Order, a letter was addressed to District
Employment Officer asking to give suitable candidates for the said posts.

329 H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Aggrieved by this letter, respondent filed a writ petition for quashing it
with direction for his appointment to the post of Homeopathic Physician.
High court allowed the writ petition. Hence the present appeal. /
"·/.
Appellant inter alia contend<d that as the post of Homeopathic
Physician was created on 1.7.1998 and was not available on 18.7.1994,
B respondent could not make any claim for the same that too after revision
of policy on 2.6.1998; and that the respondent did not satisfy the eligibility
conditions as per revised policy dated 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1998.

Respondent contended that after his name was recommended for
C appointment pursuant to Office Order dated 18.7.1994, he could not be
denied appointment when several other from. the same list were appointed;
that the policy in regard to the appointment on priority basis could not
be varied subsequently to his disadvantage so as to take away his vested
right; and that the appellant made unjustifiable discrimination in denying
appointment to him.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD I. High Court committed an error in proceeding on the basis
that the respondent had got a vested right for appointment and that could
not have been taken aw.ay by the subsequent change in the policy. It is
E settled law that mere inclusion of name of a candidate in the select list
does not confer on such candidate any vested right to get an order of
appointment.(334-B(

Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (199113 SCC 47; All India SC and
ST Employee's Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors., (20011 6 SCC
F 380 and State o/Orissa and Ors. v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and Ors.,(20031
10 sec 144, relied on.

2.1. ltis not disputed that neither homoe~pathic d_ispensary at Lehra
Mohabat power station, nor a post of Homeopathic Physician was available
on 18.7.1994. The decision to set up a homeopathic dispensary at Lehra
G Mohabat and to create a post . of Homeopathic Physician.in the dispensary
was taken
.
only
4
on 1.7.1998 long after the policy decision dated 18.7.1994
I " ' ' •

and subsequent to the change in the policy dated 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1988.
This being the posiiion., the question of the respond~nt seeking appointment
to the said post pursuant to policy decision of 18.7.1994 itself did not arise.
H (334-H; 335-A(
:. PUNJAB STATE ELE~~~ICITY BOARD v. MALKAIT SINGH 33 I ... /
' 3. The High Court also.committed an error in taking a view that A
the policy decision of2.6.1998 could not have retrospective'application.t?, l
the disadvantage of the respondent. There is no· question of applying the
policy retrospectively. On 17.9.1998 when the names of suitable candidates
were sought from the employment exchange pursuant to the dedsi~n of~
the Board dated 1.7.1998, it could not be said that the right of the B
respondent was taken away when he did not have any such vested right
to get an appointment to Class-II post of Homeopathic Physician. _
.. [335-B-CJ

4. The respondent was not eligi.b'e _to claim appo:intment on priority
basis having regard to the changed policy from 2.6.1998 .inasmuch as the C
land acquired from him was less than 2 acres and he was al~o over-aged
as on 17.9.1998. The revised policy made the position clear that there could
be no relaxation in regard to qualification and the age limit. Further the
scheme was devised on 18.9.1994 and subsequently it was re~ised only as
a concession to giv.e a helping hand as a far as possible to rehabilitate the
displaced families whose lands were acquired. The respondent has got D
com pen sat ion for his land which was acquired. The scheme giving
appointment on priority basis was only in the nature of concession t'?. '·
eligible candidates which the respondent could not claim as a matter of
right having taken Compensation amount ·ror his I~nd which-was -3cqu.ired,
more so when he did not fulfil the necessary requirements. under the E
revised scheme. [335-D, El

5. The High Court is wrong in observing that there was
discrimination against the respondent. This observation is not based on
proper foundation or facts. It is not a case wh.ere any malafide is alleged··
against the appellant or its officers. There is nothing to show that any body F
was bent upon denying the appointment to the respondent; [335-G, Fl

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6116~of
1999.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.99 of the Punjab and Haryana. G
High Court in . C.W.P. No. . 16989 of 1998.
~ .

Harinder Mohan Singh, Kaushal Yadav, Anil Hooda and Ms. Shabana
Saili for the Appellants.

K.G. Bhagat, Vineet Bhagat, Kamal Haid, Manohar Singh Bakshi, Ms. H
Sangeeta Gaur and Oebasis Misra for the Respondent.
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J. The appellant-Board acquired 987 acres cf
land situated in few villages for setting up of a power project, which included
l 0 Kanals and 18 marlas belonging to the respondent, at Lehra Mohabbat and
B paid compensation to the land owners. On 18.7.1994, the appellant Board,
with a view to rehabilitate the displaced persons who lost their lands because
of acquisition, vide Office Order dated 18.7.1994 constituted a committee for
providing employment on priority basis to one member of the affected family
whose land has been acquired for the aforesaid purpose. Pursuant to the said
policy decision as contained in the Office Order dated 18. 7 .1994, names of
...
C 277 persons were recommended for appointment on priority basis. The
respondent was one among them. Out of them, 173 persons were appointed
against the available vacancies on the basis of qualification possessed by
them limited to the maximum ofClass-lII posts. On 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1998,
the appellant-Board revised the policy considering that there was no
D justification to offer employment to those persons whose lands acquired were
very nominal and they need not be given appointment. It was further decided
that instead of the ·committee constituted earlier, the Chief Engineer (GHTP)
should re-examine the proposal only of those land owners whose lands to the
extent of 2 acres or more had been acquired for giving benefit of employment
on priority basis. It was also decided that no relaxation as regards qualification
E or age be given in future. Pursuant to ~his amended policy, cases of the
candidates whose lands were acquired were considered and only three
candidates were recommended for appointment. All other pending cases were
rejected. By the Office Order dated l.7.1998, the appellant-Board decided to
set up a homeopathic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat power station for which
F a Class-II post of Homeopathy Physician was created for the welfare of staff
and their families stationed at the aforesaid power project. A separate
committee was also constituted for selecting a suitable candidate for the said
post. Pursuant to the said Office Order, the Chief Engineer on 17.9.1998
addressed a letter to the District Employment Officer, Bhatinda to send names
of suitable candidates for the said post by 27th October, 1998. When things
G stood thus, the respondent approached the High Court by filing Civil Writ
Petition No. 16989/1998 with a prayer to quash the aforesaid letter dated
17.9.1998, and to quash the revised policy decision dated 2.6.1998. Further,
direction was sought to the appellant-Board to appoint him as a Homeopathic
Physician in the Homeopethic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat power station.
H The appellant-Board contested the writ petitiOn raising plea that he was not
-
PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDv. MALKAIT SINGH [PATIL, J.] 333

eligible to be appointed on priority basis under the scheme; inter a/ia A
contenting that the acquired land of the respondent was less than two acres
and as such he was not eligible for appointment on priority basis in terms of
the policy dated 2.6.1998; the post of Homeopathic Physician was not a
Class-III post and as such he was not eligible even under the original scheme
dated 18. 7.1994; more over, he was found over-aged and no relaxation could
be given under the amended scheme dateci 2/\.1998. The appellant also B
contended that merely because the respondent was one of the 277 candidates
whose names were recommended by the comn ,ittee for appointment, the
same does not entitle him for the appointment. Further, the compensation for
the acquired land was given to the respondent as in case of other land owners
and as such the respondent could not claim appointment under the scheme as C
a matter of right. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned
judgment, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant-Board to offer
appointment for the post of Homeopathic Physician to the respondent as soon
as possible, preferably within one month from the date of the order. In these
circumstances, aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant-Board is
before this Court in this appeal. D
The learned counsel for the appellant urged: (1) the High Court
committed an error in proceeding on a wrong footing that the respondent got
a vested right by virtue of Office Order dated 18.7.1994 when his name was
recommended for appointment pursuant to the said order; the policy could E
not be changed subsequently to the disadvantage of the respondent; (2) the
decision to, set sup a homeopathic dispensary and to appoint a Homeopathic
Physician (a Class-II post) was taken on l.7.1998; this post was not available
on 18.7.1994 and so the respondent could not make any claim for appointment
to the said post pursuant to the policy dated 18. 7.1994, that too after it was
revised on 2.6.1998; (3) as per the revised policy dated 1.5.5.1998 and F
2.6.1998, the respondent was not eligible for appointment as he did not
satisfy the eligibility conditions and (4) the respondent could not claim
appointment as a matter of right under the scheme. The scheme itself was to
give some concession in the matter of appointment.

- Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions
supporting the impugned judgment. According to him, the name of the
respondent having been recommended for appointment pursuant to the Office
Order dated 18.7.1994, the appellant-Board was not right in denying
G

appointment to him when several others from the same list were appointed;
the policy in regard to appointment on priority basis could not be varied H
334 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A subsequently to the disadvantage of the respondent so as
to take away his
vested right and the appellant-Board haS made discrimination unjustifiably in
denying appointment to the respondent. .. . _. . .. : •. / _· ·•

Having considered the respective submissions made byjlie learned
counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the High .Court committed an
B error in proceeding on the basis that the respondent had got a vested right for
appointment and that could not have been taken away by the subsequent
change in the policy. It is settled law that mere inclusion of name of a
candidate in the select list does not confer on such candidate any vested right
to get an order of appointment. This position is made clear in para 7 of the
C Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of
'India [1991] 3 SCC 47 which reads:-

u7. It is _izot correct to say that if a nufnber of vacancies are notified
for appointment and adequate number ofc;,ndidates are found fit, the
successful candidates ·acquire an indefe~ible right to be appoinied
D which cannot be legitimately denied Ordinarily the notification merely
amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment
and on their seJection they do not acquire any right to the post.
. .
Unless the relevant recruitment rules so .
indicate, the State is under no
legal duty to fill up all or any of the _vacancies. However, it does not
mean that the_ State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner.
E The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for
appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies ·or any of them are filled
up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the
.. candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination
can be peimitted. This correct position has been consistently followed
F by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions
in State of Haryana v. Subhash.Chander Marwaha, [1974] 3 SCC
220 [1973] SCC (L&S) 488: [1974] 1 SCR 165, Neelima Shangla v.
State of Haryana, [1986] 4 SCC 268 [1986] SCC (L&S) 759), or
Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab, [1985] 1 SCC 122 [ 1985] SCC
(L&S) 174 [1985] 1 SCR 899"..
G . .
_The same position is reiterated and followed by this Court in Alf India
SC & ST Employees' Assn. and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors., [2001] 6
.. SCC 3.80 and State of Orissa and Ors. v. Bhikari Charan Khuntia and Ors.,
[2003] 10 SCC.144.

H It is not disputed that neither homeopathic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat
PL!NJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. MALKAIT SINGH [PATIL, J.] 335

power station nor a post.of I;Iomeopathic Physician was available on 18. 7.19?4. A
The decision to set up a h9meopathic dispensary at Lehra Mohabbat and, to
create a post of Homeopathic Physician in the dispensary was taken only on
1.7.1998 long af~er the policy decision .dated 18.7.1994 and subsequent to the
change in the policy dated 15.5.1998 and 2.6.1998. This being the position,
the question of the respondent seeking for appointment to the said post pursuant B
to policy decision of 18. 7 .1994 itself did not arise. At any rate, there could
be no vested right in him to claim the appointment to the said post. The High
Court also committed an error in taking a view that the policy decision of
2.6.1998 could not have retrospective application to the disadvantage of the
respondent. There is no question of applying the policy retrospectively. On
17.9.1998 when the names of suitable candidates were sought from the c;
employment exchange pursuant to the decision of the Board dated I. 7.1998,
it could not be said that the right of the respondent was taken away when he
did not have any such vested right to get an appointment to Class-II post of
Homeopathic Physician. It may also be added that the respondent was not
eligible to claim appointment on priority basis having regard to the changed
policy from 2.6.1998 inasmuch as the land acquired from him was less than D
2 acres and he was also over-aged as on 17.9.1998. The revised policy made
the position clear that there could be no relaxation in regard to qualification
and the age limit. Further the scheme was devised on 18.7.1994 and
subsequently it was revised only as a concession to give a helping hand as
far as possible to rehabilitate the displaced families whose lands were acquired. E
The respondent has got compensation for his land which was acquired. The
scheme giving appointment on priority basis was only in the nature of
concession to eligible candidates which the respondent could not claim as a
matter of right having taken compensation amount for his land which was
acquired, more so when he did not fulfill the necessary requirements under
the revised scheme. The High Court in the impugned order has observed that F
"Obviously, if the effort of the respondent is to deny to the petitioner the job
that he seeks in the present case on the ground that he is overage, action of
the respondents cannot but be termed as discriminatory." This observation is
not based on proper foundation or facts. It is not a case where any mala fide
is alleged against the appellant or its officers. There is nothing to show that G
anybody was bent upon denying the appointment to the respondent.

In the light of what is stated above, it is clear that the respondent was
not entitled for an appointment. The High Court was not right in directing the
appellant-Board to appoint the respondent to the post of Homeopathic
Physician. During the course of arguments, we asked the learned counsel for H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A the respondent whether the respondent is willing to join in any of the.available
vacancies even now. On instructions from the respondent, the learned counsel
submitted that the respondent is only interested in getting the appointment to
the post of Homeopathic Physician and not any other p'>st covered by the
scheme.

B In view of what is stat_ed above and having regard to all aspects of the
matter, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence, the
appeal is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
No costs.
c v.s. Appeal allowed.