SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S. Saghir Ahmad and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 435 of 1998. D/d. 30.7.1998.

Punjab State Electricity Board And Another - Appellants

Versus

Seema And Another - Respondents

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Mandamus - Appointment - Contingent appointment - No letter of appointment issued by board - Reliance placed on letter indicated that appointment is merely on contingency basis for short period and thereafter the case for regular appointment will be considered on the basis of their performance in the tournament - Said letter cannot said to have created a right in favour of respondents to be enforced by a writ of mandamus - High Court erred in granting relief - Judgment set aside.

[Para 2]

ORDER

S. Saghir Ahmad, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 12-5-1997. By the impugned judgment, the High Court had called upon the appellant to appoint the two respondents as Lower Division Clerks. The two respondents along with 4 others had been appointed on contingency basis from 19-3-1994 to 10-4-1994 and were included in the volleyball team, which represented the Punjab State Electricity Board in an all-India competition. While recruiting them on contingency basis, it was clearly indicated that their case for regular appointment in the Board will be considered after watching their performance in the tournament. Notwithstanding the fact that the team got runners-up, no appointment letter came to be issued in favour of the second respondent and accordingly they approached the High Court for appropriate direction. It may be stated that, in the meantime, one Manmeet Kaur, who was also one of the six women recruited on contingency basis, had approached the High Court for similar relief. The High Court in that case granted relief on the ground that the appropriate authority already had taken the decision to appoint the said Manmeet Kaur on regular basis, and therefore, they cannot resile from the same. Against the said decision of the High Court in Manmeet Kaur case the Board had come up in appeal before this Court. But this Court did not grant leave and accordingly the decision of the High Court in Manmeet Kaur case reached finality. In the present case, the High Court came to the conclusion that the case of the two respondents and the case of Manmeet Kaur stand on the same footing and therefore, merely because the letter that had been issued in Manmeet Kaur case has not been issued to these two respondents, they cannot be denied of the relief sought for. On the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court having directed the Board to appoint the second respondent as Lower Division Clerk, the Board is in appeal in this case.

2. Learned counsel for the Board contended that neither has there been any letter of appointment in favour of the two respondents nor can the letter that was issued to them on 31-3-1994 be construed to have created any right to be appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk on regular basis. In that view of the matter, the High Court committed serious error in issuing the impugned direction. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that it is because of a fortuitous circumstance that the letter could be issued to Manmeet Kaur, as she was staying in the Sports Hostel, who got her letter from the Hostel to join the game, but could not be issued to the two respondents herein who were studying in different colleges in Punjab. But that should not make any distinction in considering the case for being absorbed as Lower Division Clerk on regular basis, and therefore, the High Court was justified in issuing the impugned direction. Having considered the rival submissions at the Bar and having examined the relevant documents on record, we are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. Admittedly, there is no letter of appointment issued by the Board in favour of the respondent and the only letter on which reliance could be placed is the letter dated 31-3-1994. In the said letter, in no uncertain terms it has been indicated that the appointment is merely on contingency basis from 19-3-1994 to 10-4-1994 and thereafter the case for regular appointment will be considered on the basis of their performance in the tournament. The aforesaid letter cannot be said to have created a right in favour of the respondents to be enforced by a writ of mandamus. In the absence of any letter of appointment issued by the appointing authority, namely, the Board, no right has been conferred on the respondents. The High Court, therefore, was wholly in error in granting the relief sought for on the basis of the decision in Manmeet Kaur case wherein the decision of the Board to appoint as Lower Division Clerk on regular basis had been communicated.

3. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained. We accordingly set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 12-5-1997 and allow this appeal.

There will be no order as to costs.