The central legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the government to act fairly and reasonably in appointment matters, and the requirement for government actions to conform to non-arbitrary, rational, and relevant standards and norms.

JUDGMENT

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:

"that the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondent No.2 to requisition the name of the petitioner being Sr. No. 6 in the merit wise waiting panel prepared for the post of Lab Assistant (Allopathy) against OBC (UR) category (Annexure P/4) and respondent No.3 also be directed to sponsor his name for the said post as the post is lying vacant after non-joining of the Serial No.5 candidate of waiting panel against the said post, with further direction to respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioner against the post of Lab Assistant (Allopathy) on contract basis, OBC (UR) Post Code 654."

2. On 4.9.2017, respondent No.2, i.e. Director, Health & Family Welfare sent a requisition to respondent No.3, Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission,Hamirpur, for filling up of vacant posts of Laboratory Assistant. Pursuant to such requisition, respondent No.3 recommended 102 candidates, who eventually were offered appointment on 21.6.2019. However, out of these 102 candidates, 22 candidates did not join and consequently, their appointment orders were ordered to be withdrawn by the Department vide letter dated 20.9.2019. On 20.9.2019 itself, respondent No.3 was requested to recommend names of 22 candidates from waiting panel. Respondent No.3, in turn, vide its communication dated 26.10.2019 recommended names of 22 candidates, who were offered appointment vide letter dated 23.11.2019.

3. However, out of these 22 candidates, three candidates again did not join their duties and respondent No.3 on 14.7.2020 was again requested to sponsor names of eligible candidates from the waiting panel. This time, the request of respondent No.2 was turned down by respondent No.3 by invoking Rules of Business & Procedure of the Commission, which clearly provide for life of the waiting panel to be valid upto one year from the date of recommendations in case of non-joining of earlier recommended candidates.

4. Since reply(ies) of the respondents was conspicuously silent as to what transpired from 23.11.2019, when 22 candidates had been offered appointment and out of which 3 candidates had not joined, uptill 5.8.2020, when respondent No.3 informed respondent No.2 that no further appointment could be made in view of life of waiting panel, we directed the respondents to produce before us records of the case.

5. We were shocked to note that the officials of respondent No.2 did not even bother to deal with files during this period even though 3 candidates out of 22 candidates as aforesaid had not joined. Meaning thereby, that on account of sheer negligence of the officials/officers of respondent No.2, appointment has been denied to 3 persons from waiting list.

6. It was more than four decades back that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that "it must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public, whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or issuing quotas or licences or granting other forms of largesses, the Government cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but its action must be in conformity with standard or norm which is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant. The power or discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts quotas, licences etc., must be confined and structured by rational, relevant and non-discriminatory standard or norm and if the government departs from such standard or norm in any particular case or cases, the action of the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory (Refer: Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal,1