Anoop Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
1-



N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN
IN
NJAB AND HARYANA
GARH
AT CHANDIG

CW
Re
Pro
Up
WP-24896-2021 (O&M)




Balkar R

eserved on: 15.07.2026
onounced on:07.09.2026
ploaded on: 07.09.2026
Ram and others
….Petitioners
Versus

Punjab and others
State of P


2)

Sandeep

….Respondents
CW

p Kaur and others
WP-18790-2021 (O&M)
….Petitioners
Versus

Punjab and others
State of P


3)

Anoop K

….Respondents
CW

Kaur and others
WP-18647-2023 (O&M)
….Petitioners
Versus

Punjab and others
State of P


CORAM

Present:














….Respondents
: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K
KULDEEP TIWARI

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Senior
Mr. Siddarth Dhiman, Advo
for the petitioners (in CWP
r Advocate, with
ocate,
P-24896-2021).
Mr. Anil Rana, Advocate, f
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advoca
for the petitioners (in CWP
for
ate,
P-18790-2021).
Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Adv
for the petitioners (in CWP
vocate,
P-18648-2023).
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Pun
njab.

AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
2-



EP TIWARI, J.
KULDEE

1)
Since the above captione
ed writ petitions are directed
d
against t
he same administrative order
r dated 18.08.2021, and raise
e
identical
legal issues, therefore, these
e are amenable to be decided
d
together.
. Accordingly, with the conse
ent of learned counsel for the
e
parties,
these petitions are taken
up together for disposal.

However
r, for the facility of reference,
facts are being derived from
m
CWP-248
896-2021.
2)
The fulcrum of all these p
petitions is the administrative
e
order da
ated 18.08.2021, vide which,
it was resolved not to issue
e
further a
ppointment letters to the cand
didates figuring in the waiting
g
list, purs
suant to the advertisement
dated 08.03.2019, owing to
o
lapse of
two years’ period. It was furt
ther resolved that the vacant
t
posts, if
any, should be re-advertise
ed, as per the Government
t
instructio
ons. The petitioners are t
hose, whose names were
e
included
in the waiting lists comprising
g 16 candidates for the posts
s
of Head T
Teachers, and 19 candidates
s for the posts of Centre Head
d
Teachers
s, issued by the Director Ed
ducation (Ele. Edu.), Punjab,

(for short
t ‘Department concerned’), fo
or the purpose of issuance of
f
appointm
ment letters.
Factual
Matrix
3)
Shorn of the unnecessa
ry detailed background, the
e
facts, wh
hich are relevant for adjudicat
tion of the issues involved for
r
considera
ation, are that the Departm
ment concerned issued an
n
advertise
ement dated 08.03.2019 (An
nnexure P-1), inviting online
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-3
ed cases
3-



ons from the eligible candida
applicatio
ates for filling the direct posts
s
of 375 C
Centre Head Teachers (CHT
T) and 1558 Head Teachers
s
(HT). Be
eing eligible, in terms of the a
advertisement, the petitioners
s
applied f
for the posts in question u
under different categories to
o
which the
ey belong, i.e. Open, BC, SC
(M&B) SC (RO) etc., and the
e
written
examination was conduc
cted on 20.07.2019 and
d
21.07.20
019. Thereafter, the result w
was declared on 07.08.2019
9
(Annexur
re P-2), and the candidates
s were called to attend first
t
counselin
ng for the posts of CHT, in
n sync with merit. However,

since so
ome candidates belonging to
o the Reserved Categories,

having s
secured higher marks, were
shifted to the General Open
n
Category
y while competing for the p
posts of HT, the candidates
s
belonging
g to the General Category
were, consequently, pushed
d
out of th
he zone of merit. The Depar
rtment concerned, thereafter,

recomme
ended the names of se
elected candidates, during
g
Septemb
ber/October, 2019, in the first
t phase of selection process.

Since the
e Appointing Authorities for t
the posts of CHT and HT, in
n
terms of
The Punjab Elementary Educ
cation Teaching Cadre Group
p
C, Servic
ces Rules, 2018, were the r
respective District Education
n
Officers,
therefore, all the selected c
candidates were required to
o
remain p
present at the State Head
Quarter, for the purpose of
f
allotment
t of stations, during the above
esaid period. Accordingly, the
e
vacant p
posts of CHT and HT, earma
arked for direct quota, were
e
displayed
d on screen, enabling the se
elected candidates to opt the
e
place of
posting of their choice, as p
er roster point in all districts,

AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-4
ed cases
4-



, the appointment letters were
and thus
e issued. However, out of the
e
selected
candidates, who were allo
otted the place of postings,

some did
d not opt to join within the
stipulated period, while the
e
others pr
referred reversion from the po
ost of CHT. Resultantly, some
e
posts rem
mained unfilled, post first pha
ase of the selection process.

Thereafte
er, Department concerned, w
with a view to fill the vacant
t
posts, pr
roceeded with the second pha
ase of selection process.
4)
In the meanwhile, aggriev
ved by the decision of shifting
g
the cand
didates of Reserved Categori
ies to the General Category,

being hig
gher in merit, several candid
dates from General Category
y
had rush
hed to this Court. In this attem
mpt, initially, CWP-1001-2020
0
(Rajinder
r Kaur and others Vs. State
of Punjab and others), was
s
filed, wh
erein, a Coordinate Bench, v
vide order dated 15.01.2020
0
(Annexur
re P-3), stayed the appointme
ent of the Reserved Category
y
candidate
es under General Category,
with respect to the posts of
f
HT. Sub
sequently, a few of the simi
ilarly placed candidates also
o
approach
hed this Court by filing se
eparate writ petitions. It is
s
necessar
ry to clarify, at this stage,
that though, there was no
o
dispute w
with respect to the selection p
process for the posts of CHT,

the Depa
artment concerned, on its w
isdom, had decided to keep
p
the selec
ction process even for the sa
aid posts in abeyance. As a
a
conseque
ence, the entire selection p
rocess came to a standstill.

Eventual
ly, learned Single Judge, vid
de a common decision dated
d
14.12.20
020 (Annexure P-4), dismis
ssed all the abovesaid writ
t
petitions,
, which paved the way for th
he Department concerned to
o
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-5
ed cases
5-



the third phase of the rec
initiate t
ruitment process to fill the
e
remainin
g posts, during January/Fe
ebruary, 2021. Accordingly,

appointm
ment letters to the candidates
s, who were selected in the
e
resumed
phase, were issued, during
May, 2021. It is pertinent to
o
take note
e of the fact that, out of total
375 posts of CHT, only 339
9
were fille
ed, while 07 were kept reser
rved, in compliance with the
e
various C
Court orders. Accordingly, onl
ly 29 out of 375 posts of CHT
T
remained
d vacant, but since 06
selected candidates were
e
subseque
ently reverted, the number
r of vacant posts of CHT,

through d
direct recruitment, came to 35
5 (29+6).
5)
Since the process of recru
uitment for both the posts was
s
being u
ndertaken simultaneously,
therefore, the Department
t
concerne
ed, vide notice dated 03.07
7.2021, required 16 eligible
e
candidate
es for selection to the po
osts of HT, (including the
e
petitione
rs in CWP-18790-2021), to
attend a meeting on Zoom
m
app on 0
05.07.2021, for giving their c
choice of station. However, it
t
was cla
arified that the candidates
would render themselves
s
ineligible
e for consideration, if they fail
ed to turn up for the meeting
g
on the
scheduled date. All the pe
etitioners duly attended the
e
meeting.
On the same analogy,
19 eligible candidates for
r
selection
n to the posts of CHT were al
so called upon, including the
e
petitione
rs, to attend a meeting on Zo
oom app on 05.07.2021 itself,

which w
was attended by them. T
Thereafter, the Department
t
concerne
ed, vide a communication d
dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure
e
P-14), di
irected all the District Educa
ation Officers in the State of
f
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-6
ed cases
6-



to issue appointment letter
Punjab,
rs to all the 19 candidates,

including
g the petitioners, who had op
ted their choice of station, in
n
the mee
eting held through Zoom a
app, on 05.07.2021. Similar
r
direction
was also issued with respect
t to 16 eligible candidates for
r
the posts
s of HT. Surprisingly, on the v
very next day, i.e. 09.07.2021

(Annexur
re P-15), the Department
t concerned addressed a
a
commun
ication to all the District Ed
ucation Officers (Ele. Edu.),

directing
them not to issue any appoin
ntment letters either to the 16
6
candidate
es for the posts of HT or the
e 19 candidates for the posts
s
of CHT,
on the ground that continua
tion of the selection process
s
would e
xpose the Department to
legal complications. As an
n
upshot, t
the Department concerned, v
vide impugned administrative
e
order da
ated 18.08.2021 (Annexure P
P-16), contemplated to close
e
the selec
ction process. The sole reaso
on assigned in the abovesaid
d
commun
ication is that since a perio
od of two years had already
y
elapsed,
issuance of appointment lette
ers to some more candidates
s
from the
waiting list would be in viola
ation of the Rules framed by
y
the Gove
ernment. In this backdrop, th
he petitioners are before this
s
Court, wh
hile invoking the writ jurisdictio
on of this Court.
Submiss
sions
6)
Learned counsel appe
earing for the respective
e
petitione
rs advanced their submissi
ions jointly, with Mr. Vikas
s
Chatrath
, learned Senior Advocate, as
s the lead counsel.
7)
In an attempt to assail th
he administrative order dated
d
18.08.20
021, learned Senior cou
unsel asserted that no
o
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-7
ed cases
7-



tructions were in vogue at the
rules/inst
e relevant time, under which,

the waiti
ing list was to remain in op
peration only for two years.

While pro
ojecting certain instances, as
s demonstrated in paragraph
h
2 of the
writ petition (CWP-24896-20
021), he, in a bid to convince
e
the Cour
rt, argued that numerous sele
ection processes even lasted
d
for more
e than three years in the S
tate of Punjab. By placing
g
reliance
upon the law laid down by th
he Full Bench of this Court in
n
Kesar C
Chand Vs. State of Punjab a
and others, 1988 AIR (P&H)
)
265 (FB)
), he submitted that vice of il
llegality and discrimination is
s
writ larg
e in the petitions at hand,
therefore, the claim of the
e
petitione
rs deserves to be accepted.
8)
He further referred to a
decision dated 29.03.2017,

rendered
d by a Division Bench of t
this Court in LPA-427-2017
7
(State of
f Haryana and another Vs.
Suman Rani and another),
,
wherein,
it was held that only on acc
count of delay on the part of
f
the State
e, the candidates cannot be
made to suffer. He further
r
relied u
upon a decision by an
nother Division Bench in
n
LPA-176
67-2012 (Ritu Vs. State of
f Haryana and others), to
o
submit th
hat owing to inaction of the S
State, the candidates cannot
t
be left in
n lurch. He concluded by s
submitting that the legitimate
e
expectat
ion of the selected candida
ates cannot be frustrated to
o
satisfy th
he whims and fancies of the
decision-making authority of
f
the State
e. In the matter at hand, the
e State has grossly failed to
o
justify th
hat its action to close the r
recruitment process, was in
n
consona
nce with the relevant Rules
s, if any. So much so, the
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-8
ed cases
8-



rs were not even afforded an
petitione
ny opportunity of being heard
d
before pa
assing the impugned order.
9)
Learned State counsel, pe
er contra, primarily raised an
n
objection
n with respect to the mainta
inability of the writ petitions.

While ref
ferring to the decision rendere
ed by the Hon’ble Apex Court
t
in Shank
karsan Dash Vs. Union of
India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 , he
e
contende
ed that the successful candid
ates, including the ones who
o
are place
ed in the waiting list, are not
vested with any indefeasible
e
right to
be appointed against the a
dvertised vacancies. While
e
inviting a
attention of the Court towar
rds the impugned order, he
e
sought t
to canvass that the authorit
ties concerned had taken a
a
consciou
us decision to close the proce
ess of recruitment, and to fill
l
the vaca
ant posts of CHT and HT b
by way of fresh recruitment
t
process.

10)
While elaborating his subm
missions, it was argued that,

in fact, d
discontinuation of the selecti
ion process was neither the
e
result of
an inadvertent omission, nor
r occasioned merely by efflux
x
of time.
Rather, it was a deliberate p
policy decision, which is duly
y
recorded
d on the official file. It is the s
settled proposition of law that
t
empanel
ment in a select list/waiting
g list or even completion of
f
station p
preference formalities does
not create any enforceable
e
right for a
appointment, until a formal ap
ppointment letter is issued. In
n
the insta
ant cases, as well, no form
mal appointment letters were
e
issued to
o the petitioners, therefore, t
they are not vested with any
y
enforcea
able right to seek appointme
ent. In such a situation, it is
s
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-9
ed cases
9-



ear that decision of the Depa
quite cle
artment concerned does not
t
suffer fro
om malafide or arbitrariness. H
He also brought to the notice
e
of the C
Court that, subsequently, vide
e fresh selection process, in
n
pursuanc
ce of advertisement dated 1
19.08.2021 and 31.08.2021,

the rem
maining posts/backlog were
e also filled. Finally, he
e
vehemen
ntly asserted that no candida
ates having merit lower than
n
the petiti
ioners in their respective cat
tegories, were selected, and
d
thus, the
ir claim is speculative.
Analysis
s
11)
Before examining the rival
l contentions raised on behalf
f
of the pa
arties and evaluating the legal
lity of the impugned decision,

it shall b
be imperative to take note of
certain facts germane to the
e
controve
rsy.
12)
Concededly, the Departm
ment concerned, in the third
d
phase o
f the selection process, had
d issued lists of 16 eligible
e
candidate
es for appointment to the po
sts of HT and 19 candidates
s
for the p
posts of CHT. Further, all the
e District Education Officers,

vide com
mmunication dated 08.07.20
021 (Annexure P-14), were
e
directed
to, forthwith, issue appointm
ent letters to the candidates,

including
g the petitioners, who had bee
en allotted stations, pursuant
t
to their p
participation in the meeting
held on Zoom app. Further,

they sha
all be paid remunerations, in
accordance with instructions
s
dated 21
.10.2020, as issued by the Go
overnment:-
“ Subject:- In respect of is
ssue of appointment letters to
o
the selected candidates fo
for the post of Center Head
d
Teachers against the direct
t recruitment as per the choice
e
of station held on 05.07.202
1 through zoom.
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
10-



1. On the above subject,
, it is written that this office held
d
choice of station by the sele
cted candidates for the posts of
f
Centre Head Teachers a
against direct recruitment on
n
05.07.2021 through zoom.
2. Since the posts of Cen
ntre Head Teachers are District
t
Cadre Posts, you are the a
appointment authority for these
e
posts. Consequently, wh
hile sending list of 19 CHT
T
candidates, it is written that
t candidates who have allotted
d
the station in your district,
it should be ensured that they
y
are immediately issued app
pointment letters. They should
d
be paid salary in accord
dance with Govt. instructions
s
bearing No.13/1/2020-5Edu
u./277 (1-50) dated 21.10.2020
0
(copy enclosed).
3. Thereafter, af
fter joining of these CHT
T
candidates at their place of
posting, intimation with respect
t
to their joining be sent to this
s office.”

13)
Astonishingly, the Depa
artment concerned took a
a
complete
e somersault, while issuin
g a communication dated
d
09.07.20
021 (Annexure P-15), vide wh
hich, all the District Education
n
Officers
(Ele. Edu.), were refrained
d from issuing appointment
t
letters m
merely on a flimsy and vague
e ground, which has no legal
l
validation
n. The relevant part of the
communication is extracted
d
hereinbe
elow:-
“ To
All District Education O
Officers (Ele. Edu.),
In the State of Punjab
Memo No.
DPIEE-RECTOGENL/9/2021-
-
RE
ECRUITMENT-DPIEE/20212375
50
Dated: S.A.S. Nagar,
09.07.2021.
Subject:- Regarding issu
ance of appointment letters to
o
the
e candidates for direct recruitme
ent posts on the basis of station
n
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
11-



choice 1558 Head Teachers
of
to 16 and 375 Centre Head
d
Tea
achers to 19 candidates held on
n 05.07.2021 through zoom.
1. This office conducted ch
hoice of stations on 05.07.2021

thro
ough zoom of candidates of HT
T and CHT. On the basis of this
s
cho
oice of station, this office vide
letter No.6/6/-2019 Estt-2 (R-
-
1)/2
2021213218 dated 07.07.2021
1 had written for issuance of
f
app
pointment letters to the 16 can
didates of Head Teachers and
d
vide
e letter No.6/5/2019(R-1) dated
d 08.07.2021 (File No. DPIEE-
-
RE
ECTOGENL/9/2021-RECRUITM
MENT-DPIEE1/20873/2021) to
o
the
e candidates of Centre Head Tea
achers.
2. On the above subject, i
it is written to you appointment
t
lett
ters to the 16 candidates of H
Head Teachers of these direct
t
rec
cruitment posts and 19 candida
ates of Centre Heads Teachers
s
be
not issued because the
department is facing legal
l
com
mplications.
Sd/- Assis
stant Director (Estt.-2).”

14)
Thereafter, the order und
der challenge was issued on
n
18.08.20
021, vide which, it was res
solved to put the selection
n
process
to an end, as two years had
already rolled by. Therefore,

issuance
e of appointment letters to th
he candidates of waiting list
t
would be
e in the violation of Governme
ent instructions. The relevant
t
part of th
he order reads as under:-
“2.) Recruitme
ent Board has completed the
e
entire process for recrui
itment of these posts and
d
appointment letters to se
elected candidates has been
n
issued. By now 2 years has
s elapsed from the date of start
t
of recruitment and issuance
of appointment letters to some
e
more candidates from the
waiting list of this recruitment
t
would be in violation of Gov
vt. Rules. Keeping this in view,

this recruitment should
be declared as complete.

Thereafter, in case some p
posts have fallen vacant, then
n
these posts should be
re-advertised as per Govt.

instructions.”
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
12-




15)
A conjoint reading
of the abovesaid two
o
commun
ications makes it abundantly
y clear that the administrative
e
decision
to discontinue the process
of issuance of appointment
t
letters to
o the candidates figuring in t
the waiting list was founded
d
solely on
n the purported expiry of a p
period of two years. It seems
s
that the a
abovesaid ambiguous reason
n had prompted a Coordinate
e
Bench to
o call upon the respondents, v
vide order dated 17.02.2022,

to place
on record complete instruc
ctions till date, dealing with
h
appointm
ment of candidate(s) from the
e waiting list. In compliance
e
therewith
h, an affidavit dated 06.02
.2023 of Assistant Director
r
(Establis
hment) Office of Directo
or of Public Instructions
s
(Element
tary Education), Punjab,
was furnished, delineating
g
therein th
hat, earlier instructions dated
d 22.03.1957, with respect to
o
the valid
ity of waiting list up to 6 mon
nths already stood withdrawn,

vide lette
er dated 15.05.2000. It is also
o depicted therein that “ there
e
is no in
nstructions (sic) regarding
g validity of waiting list at
t
present”
” .
16)
In the wake of the catego
ric stand set out on behalf of
f
the respo
ondents, it is manifestly clea
r that the impugned decision
n
to close t
the selection process was fou
unded on no discernible legal
l
basis. In
n the absence of any Rule
es, instructions or enabling
g
provision
ns conferring such powers up
on the authority, the decision
n
to unilate
erally bring the process to a
an end cannot be held to be
e
valid and
d tenable in law.
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
13-



As a sequel to the foreg
17)
going discussion, this Court
t
would als
so have to examine the matt
ter from another perspective,

i.e., as to
o whether the impugned decis
sion was necessitated by any
y
administr
rative exigency?
18)
This Court is fully consc
cious of the settled law that
t
mere sel
lection does not confer any
right upon the candidates to
o
seek ap
pointment. However, it is a
also equally true that in the
e
matter at
t hand, the instrumentalities o
of the State decided to close
e
the selec
ction process only on accoun
nt of lapse of two years, and
d
no reaso
on, least compelling, could be
e deciphered from any of the
e
commun
ications/letters/orders. Unde
er such peculiar facts and
d
circumsta
ances, the inevitable inferenc
ce that could be drawn by this
s
Court is t
that, mere efflux of time, by it
tself, cannot constitute a valid
d
ground to
o deprive the candidates of
their rightful due, which they
y
had earn
ned after successfully under
rgoing a strenuous selection
n
process.
The impugned letters/orders
s unequivocally publicise that
t
the Dep
partment had no administra
ative exigency, whatsoever,

warrantin
ng the abandonment of select
tion process.
19)
A somewhat similar issue
e came up for determination
n
before a
Division Bench of this Cour
rt in LPA-403-2014 (State of
f
Punjab
and another Vs. Venus). I
In the said case, through a
a
Public N
Notice dated 09.01.2013, the
e selected candidates were
e
invited to
o join service. The candidate,
, who was at serial number 1

in the w
waiting list, was not offered
appointment, despite there
e
being 20
0 vacant posts of Vocational
Masters/Mistresses Taxation
n
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
14-



s. As a natural consequence
Practices
e, she approached this Court
t
by way o
of a writ petition, to which, t
the State responded that no
o
person, u
under the waiting list, had be
een offered appointment, and
d
the said
Public Notice was issued to
afford one more opportunity
y
but only t
to the selected candidates to
join. It was also categorically
y
set out b
by the State that the Public
Notice had been withdrawn,

vide ord
er dated 19.09.2013, and,
even the waiting list stood
d
cancelled
d, pursuant to an order dated
13.08.2013.
20)
Upon consideration of the
e matter, including the stand
d
of the re
espondent-State, the learned
d Single Judge held that the
e
State ac
cted in most arbitrary manne
er in not choosing to fill the
e
vacancie
es from the selected candidat
tes. The learned Bench also
o
took note
e of the fact that despite refe
erring the matter for vigilance
e
inquiry,
the recruitment process wa
as not scrapped. Rather, a
a
candidate
e belonging to the Backward
Class Category, who was at
t
serial No
o.1 in the waiting list, was cho
osen for appointment, but the
e
candidate
e of General Category, who a
also was at serial No.1 in the
e
waiting l
ist of the respective Catego
ory, was neglected, thereby,

amountin
ng to discrimination. Aggriev
ved, the State assailed the
e
decision
of the learned Single Judg
ge in the Intra-court appeal
l
(supra),
which was dismissed, vide o
order dated 13.03.2014. The
e
relevant
observations are as under:-
“ It has been c
contended by counsel for the
e
State that the directions of
f the learned Single Judge are
e
contrary to the well settled
d proposition of law that mere
e
selection does not give right
t to the selected candidate to be
e
appointed and that if judgme
ent of the learned Single Judge
AMIT KUMAR e
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
15-



is sustained, it would creat
te a wrong precedent and that
t
the candidates in the waiting
g list would claim their rights to
o
be appointed. In our view, t
the contention of the counsel is
s
ill-founded. The learned Sing
gle Judge took note of the facts
s
of the present case that the
selection has been made as far
r
back as in the year 2
2011, the Government had
d
subsequently issued two
notifications calling upon the
e
selected candidates who ha
ad not joined, to come and offer
r
themselves for appointmen
t. It was only at a much later
r
stage in the year 2013 that t
the decision was taken to scrap
p
the waiting list. Till the scra
apping of the waiting list, it was
s
an expectation of the candi
idates in the waiting list that in
n
the event the posts remain
ned unfilled, the vacant posts
s
would be filled up from the c
candidates of the waiting list.
In view of the
aforementioned the facts and
d
circumstances, especially
when the candidate from
m
amongst the waiting list of
Backward Class Category was
s
offered appointment, the ord
der of the learned Single Judge
e
that the respondent be give
en appointment appears to be
e
justified and there is no rea
ason to interfere with the said
d
order.”

21)
This Court has also exam
mined the ratio laid down by a
a
Division
Bench of the Himachal Pra
desh High Court in Neelam
m
Thakur V
Vs. Dr. Y.S. Parmar Univers
sity and others (1996(2) RSJ
J
718, whe
erein, the Vice Chancellor of t
the University, succumbing to
o
the pres
sure exerted by the Union,
directed re-advertisement of
f
the posts
s, instead of offering appointm
ment to selected candidates.

In the ma
atter, the Division Bench has
s held that once the selection
n
process
is concluded, the authority co
oncerned is obliged to take a
a
conseque
ent action, instead of sitting o
over it. Further, the appointing
g
authority
y cannot opt to feign ignora
nce to the select list on its
s
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
16-



while declining to make appo
whims, w
ointment, unless there exists
s
cogent a
and compelling reason. The
e observations, which aptly
y
apply to t
the facts of the present case,
are referred hereinbelow:-

“7. Learned Standing
counsel for the University has
s
drawn our attention to the
decision of the apex Court in
n
Shankarsan Dash v. Union
n of India, (1991) 3 S.C.C. 47
7
and urged that the success
sful candidates do not acquire
e
indefeasible right to be a
appointed against the existing
g
vacancies and that the State
e is under no obligation to fill up
p
all or any of the vacancies.
It was further held that it does
s
not mean that the State ha
as the licence of acting in an
n
arbitrary manner. This is a
case where the State decided
d
not to fill up the vacancies fo
or appropriate reasons.
12 Viewed thus, the l
legal position may be summed
d
up as follows. Once a select
t list is prepared, the concerned
d
authority cannot sit over it a
and has to take action. It is true
e
that although a person on th
he select list has no vested right
t
to be appointed to the post f
for which he has been selected,

the appointing authority can
nnot ignore the select list on its
s
own whims and decline to
make appointment and there
e
must be cogent and reasona
able grounds for not appointing
g
a person whose name is in t
the select list.
13. Coming to the f
facts of the case in hand, as
s
stated above, there is no
dispute that the present writ
t
petitioners were allowed to s
sit in the written test as well as
s
appeared in the interview.
It is also not disputed that the
e
names of all the persons ar
re in the select list. It has been
n
admitted in the reply affida
avit that all the writ petitioners
s
were allowed to appear in th
he written test and the interview
w
by the then Vice Chancell
lor. From the reply affidavit it
t
appears that the new Vice
e Chancellor of the University
y
directed re-advertisement
for the posts mainly on the
e
ground of representation ma
ade by the General Secretary of
f
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
17-



the Technical and Class
IV employees Union of the
e
University. This is not rea
asonable ground not to offer
r
appointment to the four wr
rit petitioners as the select list
t
was valid when the advert
tisement was made. From the
e
reply affidavit it is not foun
nd why seven persons whose
e
names are in the waiting list
t, were not offered appointment
t
though there were vaca
ancies. If the present Vice
e
Chancellor wants to give op
pportunity as demanded by the
e
General Secretary of the Un
nion, he could have done so for
r
subsequent vacancies.”

22)
While dealing with an a
analogous issue, a Division
n
Bench o
of this Court in Harjit Kaur
Vs. State of Haryana, and
d
other co
onnected cases 1998 (2) RS
SJ 357, in a strongly worded
d
pronounc
cement, held that denial of
appointment to the selected
d
candidate
es, whose names surfaced
in the list prepared by the
e
Board wo
ould be, ex facie , arbitrary an
unjustified. In the said case,

action of
f the Board in not forwarding
g the entire select list to the
e
departme
ent was held to be quite myst
terious. In the absence of any
y
plausible
e explanation, the impugned
action was set aside, and a
a
direction
was passed to issue appoin
ntment letters to the selected
d
candidate
es therein. However, while ac
cknowledging the claim of the
e
petitione
rs therein, the Division Benc
ch also admitted that it was
s
consciou
us of the settled position of l
law that a candidate, who is
s
recomme
ended to be appointed, does n
not get an indefeasible right:-
“ 7. During the course

of hearing, Shri. N.C. Wadhwa,

Director, Primary Education
n, Haryana appeared in person
n
and produced before the
e Court the record of the
e
department showing the av
vailability of vacant posts. Shri
i
Wadhwa stated that as man
ny as 410 candidates who were
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
18-



given appointment on the r
recommendations of the Board
d
did not join and these pos
sts have remained unfilled. He
e
stated that as many as
165 general category, 125
5
Scheduled Castes, 37 ba
ackward classes and 84 Ex-
-
servicemen did not join
duty and these posts have
e
remained unfilled. He furth
her stated that the department
t
had forwarded the case to
o the Government for grant of
f
permission to make appo
ointment against the unfilled
d
vacancies but on 4.10.1
1996 Hon'ble the Education
n
Minister, Haryana decided
that the vacant posts be re-
-
advertised and, therefore, ap
ppointments could not be given
n
to the selected candidates a
against the unfilled posts. When
n
we enquired from Shri Wadh
dhwa as to whether there is any
y
provision in the rules req
quiring the permission of the
e
Government for appointme
ent of the selected candidates
s
against the unfilled posts, he
e expressed his inability to point
t
out any such rule.
9. After having giv
ven our thoughtful consideration
n
to the entire matter, we are
re of the opinion that denial of
f
appointment to the selected
candidates whose names were
e
included in the list prepar
red by the Board is ex-facie
e
arbitrary and unjustified.
Action of the Board in not
t
forwarding the entire select
t list to the department is quite
e
mysterious. It is rather sur
rprising that the Board should
d
have sent separate lists an
nd that too after a gap of one
e
month in the first instance a
and four months in the second
d
instance. Absence of any pla
ausible explanation about these
e
intervals creates a suspicio
on about the bonafides of the
e
authorities of the Board. Th
he learned Assistant Advocate
e
General was at a loss to ex
xplain as to why the Board had
d
not forwarded the complete
e select list to the appointing
g
authority and why the name
es were forwarded in batches.

The learned counsel was al
lso unable to explain as to why
y
unduly long time was given
n to the candidates who were
e
offered appointment after r
receipt of the list vide memo
o
dated 5.10.1995. She could
d not place before us any rule
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-1
ed cases
19-



empowering the appointing
authority to give more than ten
n
months' time to a selected
d candidate to join duty. The
e
failure of the respondents
to take appropriate steps to
o
make appointment against
the vacancies which remained
d
unfilled due to non-joining
of the selected candidates is
s
patently arbitrary becaus
se due to inaction of the
e
departmental authorities an
nd others, the other selected
d
candidates have been depr
rived of a valuable right to be
e
considered for appointment
against the available posts.
11. Ordinarily, we ma
ay have accepted the argument
t
of Ms. Bahri that the Court
should not give a direction for
r
appointment of selected
candidates in view of the
e
government's decision to
o issue fresh advertisement
t
However, in the facts of thi
is case we are fully convinced
d
that the decision taken b
by the Government is wholly
y
arbitrary and unjustified and
d there is no legal justification to
o
deny appointment to the se
lected candidates. The facts of
f
the case unmistakably show
w that the selected candidates
s
including those belonging to
o backward classes have been
n
denied appointment without
any rhyme or reason. Rather it
t
is a case of total non-applica
ation of mind.
12. We are aware of
the settled legal position that a
a
candidate who is recommen
nded to be appointed does not
t
get an indefeasible right. In
State of Haryana v. Subhash
h
Chander Marwaha, AIR
1973 Supreme Court 2216;
;
Jitender Kumar v. State o
of Punjab, AIR 1991 Supreme
e
Court 1850 and Shankars
shan Dash v. Union of India,
,
AIR 1991 Supreme Cour
rt 1612: 1991(2) S.C.T. 194:
:
1991(2) S.C.T. 555 it has be
een held that the selection does
s
not confer an absolute rig
ight upon a candidate to be
e
appointed against the availa
able vacant post and it is open
n
to the employer to refuse ap
ppointment on valid grounds. At
t
the same time, in Shan
nkarshan Dash's case, their
r
Lordships have observed as
s under:-
".....However, it does n
not mean that the State has the
e
licence of acting in an
arbitrary manner. The decision
n
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
20-



not to fill up the vacan
ncies has to be taken bonafide
e
for appropriate reason
ns. And if the vacancies or any
y
of them are filled up,
the State is bound to respect
t
the comparative merit
t of the candidates, as reflected
d
at the recruitment tes
t, and no discrimination can be
e
permitted."
These observations directl
ly apply to the present case
e
because, as already mentio
oned above, the decision of the
e
Government not to approve
the proposal of the respondent
t
No. 2 is wholly arbitrary and
capricious.
17. We, therefore, allo
ow the writ petitions and direct
t
the Director, Primary Ed
ducation, Haryana to issue
e
instructions to the compet
tent authorities to appoint the
e
selected candidates agains
st the vacant posts of J.B.T.

teachers which remained
unfilled due to non-joining of
f
those who were appointed
d earlier. While appointing the
e
candidates, the Director and
d the appointing authorities shall
l
follow the order of merit
prepared by the Board. This
s
exercise shall be complet
ted within three weeks from
m
today.”

23)
In Purushottam Vs. Ch
hairman, M.S.E.B. 1999 (6)
)
SCC 49 ,
, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
t was required to determine,

as to wh
ether, the duly selected cand
didate, who was illegally kept
t
out of em
mployment on account of unte
enable decision on the part of
f
the empl
loyer, could be denied appoi
intment solely on the ground
d
that pan
nel stood expired in the
meantime. Answering the
e
abovepo
sed question, the Hon’ble C
Court, in no uncertain terms,

accentua
ates that the right of the cand
idate to be appointed against
t
the post
cannot be taken away solely
y on the ground of expiration
n
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
21-



anel, and in the interregnum, t
of the pa
the post is filled by somebody
y
else. Th
e relevant observations are e
extracted as thus:-
“ 2. These appeals are
e directed against the Judgment
t
of the Bombay High Court d
dated 3.8.1995 refusing to issue
e
a mandamus to the respond
dents to recruit him to the post
t
to which he was selected
as well as against the order
r
refusing to review the said
judgment dated 3.8.1995. The
e
appellant undisputably wa
as selected for the post of
f
Assistant Personnel Office
er meant for Scheduled Tribe
e
category. He has produced
the certificate of the Magistrate
e
indicating hat he belongs
s to 'Halba' caste which is
s
undoubtedly the Scheduled
d Tribe, but the employer in
n
accordance with the proce
edure prescribed referred his
s
case to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee for verification. The
e
said committee being of the
opinion that the appellant does
s
not belong to Halba caste
e denied him the right to be
e
employed notwithstanding
his selection for the post in
n
question. The said order o
of the Scrutiny Committee was
s
upheld in appeal but on a
writ petition being carried, the
e
High Court in WP No. 445 o
of 1993 came to the conclusion
n
that the appellant does be
elong to the Halba caste and
d
therefore he was kept illegal
lly out of employment. The High
h
Court, therefore, directed th
he employer Maharashtra State
e
Electricity Board to conside
er the case of the appellant for
r
appointment to the post of
Assistant Personnel Officer for
r
which he had been duly sel
lected. After the said judgment
t
the appellant approached th
he authority but the authority not
t
having given the appointme
ent in question he again moved
d
the High Court. By the impu
ugned judgment, the High Court
t
was persuaded to acce
ept the contention of the
e
Maharashtra State Electricit
ty Board that in the meantime
e
somebody else has been
appointed to the post and as
s
such there is no vacancy an
nd further in terms of Regulation
n
29 the panel of selected p
persons in which the appellant
t
was included has expired a
and therefore there is no legal
l
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
22-



right of the appellant to be
enforced with by issuance of a
a
mandamus.
xx xx xx
xx
4. In view of the riva
al submission the question that
t
arises for consideration is w
whether a duly-selected person
n
for being appointed and illeg
gally kept out of employment on
n
account of untenable decisio
on on the part of the employer,

can be denied the said appo
ointment on the ground that the
e
panel has expired in the me
eantime. We find sufficient force
e
in the contention of Mr. D
Deshpande appearing for the
e
appellant inasmuch as th
here is no dispute that the
e
appellant was duly selec
ted and was entitled to be
e
appointed to the post but
for the illegal decision of the
e
screening committee which
decision in the meantime has
s
been reversed by the High
Court and that decision of the
e
High Court has reached
its finality. The right of the
e
appellant to be appointed ag
gainst the post to which he has
s
been selected cannot be tak
ken away on the pretext that the
e
said panel has in the mean
ntime expired and the post has
s
already been filled up by som
mebody else. Usurpation of the
e
post by somebody else is n
not on account of any defect on
n
the part of the appellant, bu
ut on the erroneous decision of
f
the employer himself. In
that view of the matter, the
e
appellant's right to be app
pointed to the post has been
n
illegally taken away by the
e employer. We, therefore, set
t
aside the impugned order a
and judgment of the High Court
t
and direct the Maharasht
tra State Electricity Board to
o
appoint the appellant to th
e post for which he was duly
y
selected within two months
from today. We make it clear
r
that appointment would be p
prospective in nature.”

24)
In a recent decision rende
ered in Tej Prakash Pathak
k
Vs. Raja
asthan High Court, 2024 INS
SC 847, the Hon’ble Supreme
e
Court wa
as confronted with a situation
n, as to when the recruitment
t
process
commences and comes to
an end. In response, it has
s
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
23-



d that recruitment process co
been hel
ommences from the issuance
e
of advert
tisement calling for applicatio
ns and ends with filling up of
f
vacancie
es. While opening the verd
ict with the aphorism, “The
e
ideal in
recruitment is to do away w
with unfairness, the Hon’ble
e
Apex Co
ourt, in an authoritative ma
anner, reiterates that mere
e
placeme
nt in the select list does not b
bestow the candidate with any
y
indefeas
ible right, and the State or it
ts instrumentalities, for bona
a
fide reas
ons, may opt not to fill up the
e vacancies. But, at the same
e
time, av
vailability of vacancies, inde
eed, casts a corresponding
g
obligation
n upon the State to fairly co
onsider the candidates falling
g
within the
e zone of consideration, for ap
ppointment:-
“ 42. We, therefore,
answer the reference in the
e
following terms:
(1) Recruitment pro
ocess commences from the
e
issuance of the advertisem
ment calling for applications
s
and ends with filling up of
f vacancies;

(emphasis supplied)
)
(2) Eligibility criteria f
for being placed in the Select
t
List, notified at the comm
mencement of the recruitment
t
process, cannot be cha
anged midway through the
e
recruitment process unless
the extant Rules so permit, or
r
the advertisement, which
is not contrary to the extant
t
Rules, so permit. Even if su
ch change is permissible under
r
the extant Rules or the adv
vertisement, the change would
d
have to meet the requir
rement of Article 14 of the
e
Constitution and satisfy the t
test of non-arbitrariness;
(3) The decision in K
K. Manjusree (supra) lays down
n
good law and is not in confl
flict with the decision in Subash
h
Chander Marwaha (supra)
). Subash Chander Marwaha
a
(supra) deals with the right t
to be appointed from the Select
t
List whereas K. Manjusree
(supra) deals with the right to
o
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
24-



be placed in the Select List
t. The two cases therefore deal
l
with altogether different issu
ues;
(4) Recruiting bodies
s, subject to the extant Rules,

may devise appropriate
procedure for bringing the
e
recruitment process to it
ts logical end provided the
e
procedure so adopted is tr
ransparent, non-discriminatory/
/
non arbitrary and has a ratio
onal nexus to the object sought
t
to be achieved.
(5) Extant Rules hav
ving statutory force are binding
g
on the recruiting body bot
th in terms of procedure and
d
eligibility. However, where
the Rules are non-existent, or
r
silent, administrative instruct
tions may fill in the gaps;
(6) Placement in
the select list gives no
o
indefeasible right to app
pointment. The State or its
s
instrumentality for bona f
fide reasons may choose not
t
to fill up the vacancies. Ho
owever, if vacancies exist, the
e
State or its instrumenta
ality cannot arbitrarily deny
y
appointment to a per
rson within the zone of
f
t list.” (emphasis supplied)
consideration in the select
)

25)
On the touchstone of the
settled position of law on the
e
subject,
as referred to above, this
Court has also tested the
e
legality o
of the impugned administrativ
ve order(s). The sole reason
n
assigned
d to justify the winding up of
the selection process, is the
e
lapse of
about two years’ period, since
e commencement thereof. As
s
a conse
equence, the Department
concerned, having earlier
r
directed
the District Education Officer
rs, vide communication dated
d
09.07.20
021, to issue the appointm
ment letters to the eligible
e
candidate
es in relation to 16 posts o
of HT and 19 posts of CHT,

capriciou
usly reversed its own decision
n. And, through the impugned
d
order da
ated 18.08.2021, adopted th
he harshest possible course
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
25-



the candidates by declaring t
against t
he selection process to have
e
been com
mpleted, which is nothing but
a draconian decision.
26)
At this juncture, this Cou
urt is reminded to point out,

though a
at the cost of repetition, tha
at a Coordinate Bench, vide
e
order da
ated 17.02.2022, directed th
he respondents to place on
n
record c
complete instructions with
respect to appointment of
f
candidate
es from the waiting list, so a
as to thoroughly analyse the
e
stand of
the State that waiting list w
would only be valid up to two
o
years. I
nterestingly, the Department
, through the above referred
d
affidavit,
has unambiguously stated
that as on date, no such
h
instructi
ions exist which mandate
any lifespan for a waiting
g
list.
27)
In conspectus of the abo
vesaid crystal-clear position,

this Cour
rt is left with no other option,
but to hold that the decision
n
of the De
epartment concerned is bere
eft of any foundational basis.

Notably,
not even a semblance of a r
reason has been assigned in
n
support
of a decision, which w
was fraught with serious
s
conseque
ences for the future of the ca
andidates concerned. Suffice
e
it to say,
the decision, thus, can only
be regarded as an outcome
e
of total
non-application of mind. H
However, this Court is not
t
oblivious
s of the fact that selection pro
ocess remained halted, owing
g
to pendin
ng litigation before this Court
t. And, only upon conclusion
n
thereof,
the Department re-initiated t
the process. Surprisingly, in
n
the third
counseling, the Departmen
nt traversed to the extent of
f
calling up
pon the candidates to select t
the stations, and directing the
e
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
26-



Education Officers to, forthw
District E
with, issue the appointment
t
letters, b
but only to rescind the entire
e exercise. Even after giving
g
thoughtfu
ul consideration, this Court h
has no reason to believe that
t
the Dep
artment concerned, post re
eaching the final stage, i.e.

issuance
e of appointment letters, close
ed the process midway, only
y
on accou
unt of passage of two years’ p
period. If this, indeed, was the
e
reason, t
this Court is constrained to o
observe that the State and its
s
instrume
ntalities have failed to perfo
orm their duties as a model
l
employe
r. It is the least that can be e
xpected of the State to act in
n
most fair
r and reasonable manner, p
particularly, when the matter
r
relates t
to the legitimate expectation
ns of candidates, who have
e
successf
fully undergone the selection
n process; ergo, it does not
t
behove t
he State to frustrate the entire
e exercise on such a tenuous
s
and mec
chanical ground.
28)
Before parting with the ma
atter, and proceeding towards
s
the conc
clusion, this Court cannot res
strain itself from adverting to
o
the obse
ervations recorded by the
Constitution Bench of the
e
Hon’ble S
Supreme Court in Shankarsa
an Dash Vs. Union of India,
,
1991 (2)
S.C.T. 555:-
“7. It is not cor
rrect to say that if a number of
f
vacancies are notified for
r appointment and adequate
e
number of candidates ar
re found fit, the successful
l
candidates acquire an inde
efeasible right to be appointed
d
which cannot be legitim
ately denied. Ordinarily the
e
notification merely amounts
s to an invitation to qualified
d
candidates to apply for recr
ruitment and on their selection
n
they do not acquire any
right to the post. Unless the
e
relevant recruitment rules so
o indicate, the State is under no
o
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
27-



legal duty to fill up all or any
y of the vacancies. However, it
t
does not mean that the State
e has the licence of acting in an
n
arbitrary manner. The decis
sion not to fill up the vacancies
s
has to be taken bona fide f
for appropriate reasons. And if
f
the vacancies or any of th
hem are filled up, the State is
s
bound to respect the compa
arative merit of the candidates,

as reflected at the recruitm
ment test, and no discrimination
n
can be permitted. This
correct position has been
n
consistently followed by this
s Court, and we do not find any
y
discordant note in the deci
isions in State of Haryana v.
.
Subhash Chander Marwah
ha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR
R
165; Miss Neelima Shang
gla v. State of Haryana and
d
Others, [1986] 4 SCC 26
68 and Jitendra Kumar and
d
Others v. State of Punjab
b and Others, [1985] 1 SCR
R
899.”

29)
Ordinarily, the Court exhib
bits a self-restraint in issuing
g
directions
s with respect to issuance o
of appointment letters to the
e
selected
candidates. But, the Court c
cannot turn a blind eye, when
n
it is conf
fronted with a decision whic
ch evidently suffers from the
e
vice of i
rrationality, and based on ir
rrelevant consideration as is
s
manifest
ly the position in the matter at
t hand.
30)
In summa, the impugned
letters dated 09.07.2021 and
d
18.08.20
021 are set aside. Consequen
tly, all these writ petitions are
e
allowed ,
, in the following terms:-
1) The peti
itioners in all these petitions,

whose names figured in th
he waiting list, and were also
o
directed to be issued app
pointment letters, in terms of
f
communication dated 09.
07.2021 for 16 posts of HT
T
and 19 posts of CHT, s
shall be issued appointment
t
AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-248
connect
896-2021 (O&M)&
-2
ed cases
28-



letters, as per merit, s
ubject to fulfilling of other
r
eligibility conditions;
2) The Dep
partment concerned shall be
e
at liberty to create supern
umerary posts to adjust such
h
candidates, in the even
nt of unavailability of the
e
sanctioned posts.
3) However
r, it is clarified that the
e
appointments, as demons
strated above, shall be made
e
prospectively.
4) The en
ntire exercise shall be
e
completed within two mo
onths from the receipt of a
a
certified copy of this order.
r.

31)
Pending applications, if an
ny, shall also stand disposed
d
of, accor
rdingly.

A photocopy of this orde
er be placed on the file of
f
connecte
ed case.




07.09.20
Ak Sharm



026
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
JUDGE
ma
Whether speaking/reasoned
Whether reportable
Yes
Yes/No

AMIT KUMAR
2026.09.07 18:27
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document