Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.versusMAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 52
- Decided
- 7 February 1994
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The direction to consider waiting‑list candidates for ad‑hoc appointments is an enabling direction and remains valid even if the waiting list has lapsed, though it does not confer a vested right to future recruitment.
Summary
The State of Haryana sought recruitment of 11 Chief Inspectors, with a selection committee appointing 11 and placing four general‑category candidates on a waiting list. The candidates challenged the non‑appointment, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that while the waiting list did not create a vested right, the State could consider them for any ad‑hoc appointments in order of merit. The State appealed, contending that the waiting list had lapsed after one year and therefore the candidates could not claim any appointment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s direction was merely an enabling one; if the State decides to make ad‑hoc appointments, the waiting‑list candidates must be taken into account even though the list had technically lapsed, though no right to future recruitment is conferred. The Court also clarified that general‑category candidates will be considered only against the general quota. The appeals were dismissed and the matter was disposed of without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether a waiting list that has lapsed after the prescribed period creates any right to appointment for the candidates.
- Whether the High Court's direction to consider waiting‑list candidates for ad‑hoc appointments is legally valid.
- Whether the State can lawfully appoint waiting‑list candidates on an ad‑hoc basis despite the lapse of the waiting list.
Subjects
service lawselection and appointmentwaiting listad hoc appointmentmerit orderreservation quotaadministrative exigency
Judgment
)
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. A
v.
MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 7, 1994
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) B
Service Law: Selection and appointment-Candidates Wait- listed-
Claim for appointment--lfigh Court's direction that they be considered while
making ad hoc appointments-Held: Enabling direction and hence valid.
c
The appeliant-State requested the Subordinate Selection Committee
for the recruitment of 11 Chief Inspectors from the resenred and general
categories. Accordingly the Committee selected 11 candidates and placed
four candidates in the waiting list. These four candidates approached the
H~~~ D
The High Court took the view that no right to the post was created
in favour of the candidates in the waiting list, but if the State, for
administrative exigencies, filled up the post on ad hoc basis, it may
appoint them in the order of merit. Against this order the State perferred
the present appeal coni.ending that the list had elapsed by emux of time E
of one year and so the candidates in the waiting list had no right to be
appointed.
Disposing of the appeals, this Court
F
HELD: 1.1. If the appellants do not make any appointments to the
posts, the question of considering the claims of the waiting list candidates
does not arise. In the event of the appellants' choosing to make appoint-
ments even on ad hoc basis, then certainly the candidates in the waiting
list, though it lapsed, must be considered for appointment de hors the
Rules which may not confer any right on them for future recruitment. It G
is only an enabling direction to make ad-hoc appointment pending regular
recruitment. (699-C]
1.2. The respondents being the general candidates will be considered
only against the quota reseved for general candidates. [699-D] H
697
698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 1 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 896-898
of 1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1_992 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 17600/1991, 2601 & 3741 of 1992.
B Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellants.
Madhava Reddy and Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
C Leave granted.
1. Heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals arise out of
the order dated August 4, 1992 of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition
No. 17600 of 1991 etc. The admitted facts are that the appellant-State had
requisitioned to the Sub-ordinate Selection Committee to recruit by direct
D recruitment 11 candidates to the post of Chief Inspectors. They have
categorised the vacancies as under: -
6 posts for General Cendidafos
2 posts for Scheduled Caste
E
1 post for Backward Class
2 posts for Ex-serviceman
While selecting 11 candidates the Committee also kept four more can-
F didates in the waiting list. The respondents stand at SI. Nos. 8 to 11. They
admittedly belong to the general cetegory.
2. The High Court while disposing of the matter held that keeping
the candidates in the waiting list does not create any right in their favour
G in the posts, but if the appellant for administrative exigencies fill up the
post on ad hoc basis then it is open to the appellants to appoint the
candidates waiting in the list in the order or merit. The contention of Ms.
Indu Malhotra, learned counsel for the State, is that the list had elapsed
by efflux of time of one year and the candidates who were waiting in the
list have no right to claim for appointment. The High Court is, therefore,
H not right in directing appointment of candidates in the waiting list in the
)
STATE OF HARYANA v. M.P. SHARMA 699
order of merit. It is true that the waiting list will be valid only for one year A
and on the expiry thereof the waiting list shall stand lapsed; but what the
High Court appears to have directed was that in the event of any ad hoc
appointments being made to any existing vacancies, de hors the rule, the
respondents will be considered for ad hoc appointment since their ·names
are in the select list, provided the Government chooses to make such B
appointment.
3. We do not find any illegality in the observations of the High Court.
It is one of option to the appellants. lt the appellants do not make any
appointments to the posts, the question of considering the claims of the
waiting list candidates does not arise. In the event of the appellants' C
choosing to make appointments on ad hoc basis, then certainly the can-
didates in the waiting list, though it lapsed, must be considered for appoint-
ment de hors the Rules which may not confer any right on them for future
recruitment. It is only an enabling direction to make temporary appoint-
ment pending regular recruitment.
D
4. It is needless to men~ion that the respondents being the general
candidates will be considered only against the quota reserved for general
candidates.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
G.N. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search