1987 Supreme(MP) 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
G.G. Sohani, R.K. Varma, JJ.
Shivsingh – Petitioner
Versus
State of M. P. – Respondent
M. P. No. 122 of 1987 (I)
Decided On : 04-11-1987

Headnote:Civil Servants – duly selected candidate – should be appointed on vacant post – delay is no ground to refuse such appointment.

        Short Note

       1. Pursuant to an advertisement inviting applications from candidates for appointment to the post of constable in the Police Force of the State, the petitioner applied for a post of constable. In the selection test and necessary examination held, the petitioner was found fit and was selected among other selectees in the General Category. It is not disputed that 9 candidates from the general category were selected for the post of Constable, out of whom 5 of them including one Kalyan Patel were selected against five vacant posts of constable and four selectees were shown in the waiting list in which the petitioner's name finds place at Sr. No.3, vide order of Respondent No.5, dated 21 – 1 – 1986 (Annexure R – I). Among the selectees Kalyan Patel could not be appointed as he failed to present himself. Consequently, by a letter dated 17 – 10 – 1986 (Annexure A – 1) the selectees shown in the waiting list including the petitioner were asked to appear before the Superintendent of Police respondent No.5 on 23 – 10 – 1986 at 11 A. M. in his office and it was also made clear that if the selectee did not appear on the date and time mentioned in the letter he would be deemed to be not interested in having the post. In response to this letter the petitioner appeared as directed and no other candidate out of the waiting list of selectees appeared before the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5, therefore, recommended appointment of the petitioner as constable in his letter dated 11 – 11 – 1986 (R – 14) addressed to the Deputy Inspector General Police (Training), Police Head Quarters, Bhopal. But the petitioner was not appointed because the Police Head Quarters took the view that it was too late to take a candidate from the waiting list vide letter dated 29 – 12 – 1980 (Annexure R – 15). The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition on 19 – 1 – 1987.

       Held: Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this petition must be allowed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been lawfully selected and recommended for appointment against the vacant post of Constable and is, therefore, entitled to be appointed as a Constable. The refusal to appoint the petitioner as a constable on the ground that it is too late to appoint a selectee from the waiting list is not reasonable and cannot be sustained in law. The petitioner had appeared before• the respondent No.5 on 23 – 10 – 1986 as directed by him and was recommended for appointment. No Rule has been shown to us by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents which puts limitation of time in making appointment out of the selectees from the waiting list. Appointment to the posts advertised ought to be made from among the selected candidates who had applied in response to that advertisement. In the circumstances of the present case refusal to appoint the petitioner and keeping the post vacant in the absence of any statutory Rule requiring the waiting list of selectees to lapse beyond a prescribed time limit, would be arbitrary. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a Constable against the vacant post and direct that the respondents shall issue an appointment order to the petitioner in respect of that post within six weeks from the date of this order. 'Petition allowed.