Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suraj vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 March, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036581
CWP-6036-2024 2024:PHHC:036581 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(123) CWP-6036-2024
Date of Decision : March 14, 2024
Suraj .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Vikas Lochab, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Nain, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
Ms. Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, for respondent No.3-HPSC.
HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)
1. In the present writ petition, the prayer of the petitioner is that
he had competed for the post of Drug Control Officer and keeping in view
the number of posts advertised, the petitioner could not get selected but
submits that now as all the posts advertised have not been filled up, the
claim of the petitioner should be considered for appointment against the
said vacant post.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the
petitioner for the post in question has been declined vide letter dated
01.03.2024 (Annexure P-10) while replying to the legal notice submitted by
the petitioner.
3. It may be noticed that the respondent No. 3- Haryana Public
Service Commission issued an Advertisement No.2 dated 10.09.2015
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036581
(Annexure P-1) advertising 4 posts of Drug Control Officer. Out of the said
4 posts, 2 were to be filled from the General category, 1 from the reserved
category of Scheduled Caste and 1 from the reserved category of backward
class. The petitioner competed for the post in question in the General
category. In the meantime, by a Corrigendum dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure
P-2), the post of Drug Control Officer to be filled were increased from 4 to
26 and out of the 26 posts, 15 were to be filled from General category, 6
from the reserved category of Scheduled Caste and 3 from the backward
class of BC(A) and 2 from BC(B).
4. The petitioner competed for the said post and appeared in the
written test, which was held on 03.10.2019. The petitioner was called for
interview on 13.08.2020 in which the petitioner appeared and ultimately,
the result of the selection process was declared on 18.09.2020 in which, the
petitioner's name was not mentioned in the list of selected candidates
against the 15 posts to be filled up in the General category. While making
the selection for the post in question, the last candidate selected in the
General category was shown to have secured 59.76 marks. The petitioner
himself has mentioned in the petition that the petitioner is an un-selected
candidate.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that as two candidates namely
Kapil Sharma and Ankush Gupta, who were selected against 15 posts to be
filled from the General category, did not join the post in question within
time prescribed, the said two posts should have been offered to the
candidates next in the merit list and as the petitioner is next in the merit, he
should be given one of the two vacant post. As the said prayer of the
petitioner was not being accepted, the petitioner sent a legal notice and in
reply to the said legal notice, the respondents mentioned that as no waiting
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036581
list was prepared for the post in question, the petitioner cannot himself
claim to be a selected candidate in the waiting list to be appointed against
the post in question and as per the Haryana Civil Services (Executive
Branch) and Allied Services and other Services Common/Combined
Examination Act, 2002, no waiting list is to be prepared hence, the
petitioner cannot claim one of the two posts which could not be filled up in
the General category. The said action of the respondents is under challenge
in the present writ petition.
6. Keeping in view the service of advance copy of petition, Ms.
Harpriya Khaneka, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of respondent
No.3- Haryana Public Service Commission and submits that qua the post of
Drug Control Officer, two lists were issued, one of the selected candidate
and one of the un-selected candidates and the petitioner is the part of the list
of un-selected candidates hence, any candidate, who has not been selected
by the Commission, cannot raise a claim qua the vacant post as only the
selected candidate either in the main list or in the waiting list, can claim
appointment, which is not the case in the present case.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
8. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that he should be given one of the two post of Drug Control
Officer in the General category, which remained vacant. The question is
whether, the petitioner can claim such relief keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
9. It is a conceded position that while framing the merit list for the
post in question, there was no waiting list prepared so that in case any post
which remained vacant, could be filled up from the waiting list. Further,
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036581
the petitioner has conceded in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that he is an
"un-selected candidate". Once, the petitioner himself has conceded that he
is an un-selected candidate, an un-selected candidate has no right to claim a
post even if, any of the selected candidate does not join or the post
advertised remain vacant. There is no obligation upon the selecting agency
to frame a waiting list. In the absence of any waiting list, the petitioner
cannot even claim that he is next in the waiting list so as to claim
appointment.
10. Further, with regard to the contention which has been raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he is at No.1 in the category of
"un-selected candidate", nothing has come on record to show that the
petitioner was ever selected for the post in question and once the petitioner
has himself conceded that he is un-selected, the question whether he is at
serial No.1 or No.2 out of the un-selected candidates, is im-material as no
"un-selected candidate" can raise a claim for any post.
11. Further, the said question of law whether, the selecting agency
is under an obligation to frame a waiting list, has already been decided by
this Court while passing order in CWP No.24762 of 2017 titled as Divya
Bhatia vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 27.10.2022. In the said
judgment, it has been held that there is no obligation upon the selecting
agency to frame a waiting list and in the absence of any waiting list, the
candidates, who are not the part of the select list, cannot claim appointment
even if any of the post advertised remains vacant.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to
distinguish that the judgment in Divya Bhatia's case (supra) is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036581
13. The last argument which has been raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in LPA No.404 of 2022 titled as Haryana Public Service
Commission vs. Anshul and another, the petitioner is entitled for the grant
of the benefit. The judgment in Anshul's case (supra) will not come to the
rescue of the petitioner to claim the benefit of appointment for the post in
question as, in paragraph 4 of the said judgment, it has been mentioned that
the Commission did not intend to form a waiting list after the two posts
remained vacant and in case, the said list would have been prepared, the
respondents therein would have been next in line to seek appointment. In
the present case, no such fact has been brought on record that the
Commission wanted to prepare any waiting list after two candidates failed
to join the post of Drug Control Officer in the General category. That
being so, merely that the posts remained vacant, in the absence of any
waiting list, no "un-selected candidate" cannot raise any claim for selection.
14. In the present case, the respondents have issued two lists one
for the selected candidates and the second list of un-selected candidates. In
the present case, the name of the petitioner appears in the list of unselected
candidates. That being so, the judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Anshul's case (supra) cannot be made applicable as even as per
the selection agency, the petitioner has been put in the list of unselected
candidates. An un-selected candidate cannot claim to be treated as selected
so as to claim appointment against any post which remain vacant hence, the
claim of the petitioner to grant him the benefit of appointment against one
of two post of Drug Control Officer, which remain vacant in the General
category, cannot be accepted.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036581
15. Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out for any
interference by this Court in the present case.
16. Dismissed.
March 14, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
harsha JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
