An appointing authority cannot arbitrarily or illegally deny appointment to a meritorious candidate on the waitlist when a vacancy arises, nor can it use its own delay or administrative inaction to claim a merit list has become void to defeat the candidate's legitimate claim for appointment.

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Agriculture Development Officer as recommended by respondent No.2, vide memo dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure P-6), with all consequential benefits including seniority from the date her batchmates were appointed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that Punjab Public Service Commission, vide Advertisement No.09(i) dated 20.12.2016 (Annexure P-1), invited online applications for 141 posts of Agriculture Development Officer (Group-A) including 02 posts for Wards of Freedom Fighter, Punjab (Category No.74). The petitioner, who was serving as Agriculture Sub Inspector in the Department of Agriculture since 11.11.2016, being fully eligible for the said post, applied through proper channel against Category No.74. The written test was conducted on 23.07.2017 and interview was conducted on 02.11.2017 and the final result was declared on 07.11.2017 and the petitioner was placed 3rd in merit list in Category No.74 (Annexure P-2). The candidate at Sr. No.2, namely Sh. Raman Kant Singla, who was working as Field Officer (Preservation) in Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED) since 12.09.2011 could not join on the said post offered to him as his parent department-MARKFED did not issue ‘No Objection Certificate’ to him. The petitioner, who was next in merit, submitted representation to the respondents seeking appointment to the post of Agriculture Development Officer and her case was sent by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, however, respondent No.1, vide memo dated 15.04.2019 (Annexure P-3), informed respondent No.2 that Sh. Raman Kant Singla has filed CWP No.1420 of 2018 titled as ‘Raman Kant Vs. State of Punjab and others’ before this Court and till the decision of the same, the petitioner cannot be appointed to the post of Agriculture Development Officer. Subsequently, the abovesaid petition filed by Sh. Raman Kant Singla was dismissed as not pressed, vide order dated 11.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) and immediately, thereafter, the petitioner again submitted representation dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2, seeking appointment to the post of Agriculture Development Officer, being the next candidate in merit. The said representation was forwarded by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1, vide letter dated 14.06.2023 (Annexure P-6), however, the petitioner was not offered appointment. Hence the instant petition.

3. Reply, by way of an affidavit of Sh. Jaswant Singh, Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Punjab, on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2, has been filed, wherein the abovesaid facts have not been disputed, however, in the said reply it has been stated as under :-

“xx xx xx xx xx

4. That as of now, the petitioner has claimed that as the candidate placed at Sr. 240 did not join on the Post hence, her case to be considered for appointment to the Post of Agriculture Development Officer. The bare perusal of the contents of the present Writ Petition shows that the petitioner has relied upon the Annexure P-3 whereby the representation filed by the petitioner was declined by the respondent No. 2 by recording the reason therein that as the candidate placed at Sr. No. 240 has filed the CWP No.1420 of 2018 before this Hon'ble Court hence, the till the final outcome of the said writ petition her case cannot be taken for consideration and Annexure P-6 whereby, after the decision of the above s