Ajit Singh vs Principal Govt. College and Another

Swatanter Kumar, J.—The appellant herein filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the respondents-college was obliged to give appointment to the appellant on the post of Groundman and further that they be restrained from holding interview for the said post on 8.10.1992. To substantiate this cause, the appellant submits that the Employment Exchange had forwarded/recommended the names to the Principal of Government of College Gharaunda for the post of Groundman but nobody was selected in the year 1992. The interview was again fixed for 3.10.1993 and the plaintiff was the only sponsored candidate from the employment exchange and the interview was cancelled. As the appellant apprehended that he would not be appointed, he approached the higher authorities and thereafter filed the present suit. The suit was contested by the respondents on the ground that in the year 1992, no interview was held and on the subsequent occasion, the employment exchange had only sponsored one candidate i.e. the appellant and as such interview was cancelled and again was fixed for 8.10.1993. However, later on this requisition was cancelled because by that time the college did not require the groundman at all. In place of the post of Groundman the post of sweeper was sanctioned and it was the prerogative of the Director Higher Education to accord sanction for the said post.

On the above facts and upon affording opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide its judgment and decree dated 10.10.1996. Appeal against the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 3.10.1997, which has been assailed in the present Regular Second Appeal.

It is settled principle of law that no person has a fundamental or legal right to be appointed. Where the department holds selection or interview for the purpose of making appointment then it is obliged to appoint a person out of such penal of interview; but where no appointments are made, the department cannot be forced to make appointment, if they have valid reasons for doing so. The mere fact that the name of the appellant was sponsored by the employment exchange in no way provides an indefeasible right to the appellant for the appointment to the post of Groundman, which post already stood converted and appointment was made. Keeping in view these facts in mind there is no merit in this appeal.

The judgments of the courts below are well reasoned and are in consonance with the settled principles of law. Finding no merits, this Regular Second Appeal is dismissed.