Karaj Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 February, 2026
inkinccorporation@gmail.com
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karaj Singh And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 February, 2026
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
1. CWP-12999-2020 (O&M)
Karaj Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
2. CWP-19647-2020 (O&M)
Kulwant Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
1. Date when judgment was reserved 19.02.2026
2. Date of pronouncement of 27.02.2026
judgment
3. Date of uploading judgment 27.02.2026
4. Whether operative part or full Full
judgment is pronounced
5. Delay, if any, in pronouncing of Not Applicable
full judgment and reasons thereof
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-12999-2020.
Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate
for the petitioners in CWP-19647-2020.
Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Sheaj Bir Singh, Advocate
with Ms. Muskan Gill, Advocate
and Mr. Dhruv Khosla, Advocate
for the respondent/PSPCL in both the cases.
1 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 2
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. Vide this common order, I intend to dispose of CWP
Nos.12999 and 19647 of 2020, as common questions of law and facts
are involved for adjudication. For the sake of convenience, facts are
taken from CWP-12999-2020.
2. Prayer in the writ petition (CWP-12999-2020) filed under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of a writ in
the nature of certiorari, for quashing the order dated 01.10.2019
(Annexure P-10) as well as the decision concerning to the cancellation
of the post, as find mention in the impugned order passed by respondent
No.3 is illegal as well as contrary to the report of the commission dated
19.09.2011 (Annexure P-4) and judgments dated 27.11.2013,
03.07.2019 and 28.08.2019 (Annexures P-5, P-8 and P-9, respectively)
passed by this Court. Further a writ of mandamus has been sought,
directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners on the
basis of their merit against the post, which were available and against
which they have competed in pursuance to advertisement issued in
January, 2011 (Annexure P-1) and also to grant all consequently
benefits.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that
as advertisement was issued in January, 2011, inviting applications for
filling up 5000 posts of lineman on contractual basis at a consolidated
salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. In the meantime, one PIL bearing
CWP-4881-2011, titled as Ludhiana Hand Tools Association vs State
2 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 3
of Punjab and others, was filed on the ground that the
respondent/Corporation has surplus manpower and filling up of 5,000
posts of Lineman would result in wastage of public funds and this Court
vide order dated 09.11.2011, permitted the respondent/Corporation to
fill upto 1000 posts of Lineman as an interim measure. During the
pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the respondent/Corporation filed
CM No.1923 of 2013, seeking clarification of the earlier order dated
19.07.2011, stating that there were 4388 vacant sanctioned post of
Lineman and by 31.12.2013, 703 posts of Lineman would fall vacant
due to the retirement and about 400 posts would be available due to the
promotion. On the said application, this Court passed an order dated
22.01.2013 (Annexure P-3) clarifying that the Punjab State Electricity
Regulatory Commission would look into the matter and submit its
report within two months and till then, the respondent/Corporation will
not make any recruitment proposed to be made. It was further clarified
that the order would be operated till the submission of the report. In the
meantime, on 19.09.2011, the respondent/Corporation issued work order
to private contractor for engaging the technical persons through
outsourcing. The aforesaid work order given to private contractor was
challenged by certain unemployed persons by filing CWP-13191-2013
and since the tenure of the work came to an end on 13.09.2013, thus, the
said writ petition was rendered as infructuous. Thereafter, the report of
Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission dated 27.11.2013 was
filed and on 27.11.2013, the PIL i.e. CWP-4881-2011 was disposed of.
3 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 4
The respondent/Corporation thereafter issued a public notice dated
20.12.2013, advertising approximately 1,000 posts of Lineman on
contractual basis. Certain candidates, thereafter, filed CWP-4458-2011,
titled as Kulwant Singh and others vs State of Punjab and others,
seeking enhancement of upper age from 37 years to 39 years. On
11.03.2011, the Division Bench of this Court directed the respondents to
consider the claim in accordance with law and no post would be filled
up till the decision regarding the relaxation in age is passed. In
purported compliance, the respondent/Corporation increased the upper
age limit to the post of Lineman from 37 years to 39 years as the public
notice dated 20.12.2013 was not issued in accordance with the report
dated 19.09.2011 (Annexure P-4) as well as order dated 27.11.2013
passed in CWP-4881-2011 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, some of the
candidates filed CWP-1025-2014, titled as Balwinder Singh and
others vs. Punjab State Corporation Limited and others and CWP-
9498-2014 titled as Sukhvir Singh and another vs. State of Punjab
and others, which were dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court on 08.08.2016 (Annexure P-7). The intra-court appeal bearing
LPA-1940-2016, titled as Rajesh Kumar and others vs Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director and others, was filed, which was ordered to be admitted on
03.10.2016. Since the case of the petitioners i.e. CWP-18038-2017, for
the purpose of taking appointment against the post of Lineman was
pending and the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
4 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 5
16.08.2017, ordered the same to be heard along with LPA-1940-2016
and thus, an application i.e. CM No.17106 of 2017, was filed seeking
early hearing, however, the same was dismissed on 08.02.2018 and
thereafter, an SLP(C) No.1371 of 2018 was filed and during the
pendency of the same, the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1940-
2016, directed the respondent/Corporation to consider the case of the
appellants therein while taking into consideration the judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Transport Corporation vs
U.P. Parivahan Nigam, 1995 AIR (SC) 1115, within a period of six
weeks. Since the LPA-1940-2016 was decided, the petitioners filed
CM-10971-CWP-2019, which was disposed of by the Division Bench
of this Court on 28.08.2019, in the same terms as is evident from
Annexure P-9. In purported compliance, respondent No.3 vide order
dated 01.10.2019, rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground
that vide order dated 19.11.2011, this Court only permitted filling up of
1,000 posts of Lineman and since the name of the petitioners did not fall
upto 1,000 merit list, therefore, they were not issued the appointment
letters and the Board of Directors of respondent/Corporation took a
decision on 03.02.2014, to cancel the recruitment of remaining post of
Lineman against the advertisement No.267 of 2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
impugned order dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P-10) is an outcome of
non-application of mind as the appointment of the petitioners was never
under challenge before the Division Bench in Ludhiana Hand Tools
5 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 6
Association‘s case (supra). Moreover, the respondent/Corporation
moved an application i.e. CM No.1923 of 2013, seeking clarification of
the earlier order dated 19.07.2011, stating that there were 4388 vacant
sanctioned post of Lineman and by 31.12.2013, 703 posts of Lineman
would fall vacant due to the retirement and about 400 posts would be
available due to the promotion. The petitioners had participated in the
selection process and the Board of Directors of the
respondent/Corporation made a U-turn from the stand taken in the
aforesaid CM No.1923 of 2013, by canceling the recruitment on the
remaining posts of Lineman issued against the advertisement No.267 of
2011. Moreover, the petitioners were not impleaded as a party in the
aforesaid Ludhiana Hand Tools Association‘s case (supra). The order
dated 01.10.2019 (Annexure P-10) and the decision of the Board of
Directors dated 03.02.2014, have given rise to a civil consequence and
therefore, both of them are liable to be rejected on the ground of not
adhering to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners were neither
given any notice nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded to them.
The petitioners were not given appointment merely due to pendency of
PIL i.e. Ludhiana Hand Tools Association‘s case (supra), however,
once the litigation has come to an end and the respondent/Corporation
in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Kulwant Singh‘s case
(supra) (CWP-4458-2011), has enhanced the upper age by giving
relaxation to the post of Lineman, the petitioners cannot be denied the
favourable order passed qua age relaxation. Once the petitioners have
6 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 7
duly participated in the selection process and they were successful
merely because of pending litigation, their vested right cannot be
negated in any manner. As such, the decision for cancelling the
remaining vacancy taken by the Board of Directors on 03.02.2014, is
not sustainable in the eyes of law. The petitioners were condemned
unheard and they have crossed the upper age for seeking public
employment merely because of the pending CWP-4458-2011, and
therefore, the overall analysis of the factual matrix as well as the legal
position and also in view of the availability of the sanctioned posts, the
petitioners are entitled to be given preferential right in terms of Para 12
of the judgment rendered in U.P. State Transport Corporation‘s case
(supra). He further contends that if the age were alone could defeat the
right of the petitioners, the same can be ignored as the
respondent/Corporation has already relaxed the upper age limit in terms
of the directions issued by this Court in Kulwant Singh‘s case (supra).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA-1928-2019, titled as
Saneh Lata and others vs State of Haryana and others, in which the
question was framed whether the State Government was justified to
cancel the recruitment process after finalization and issuance of the
select list only on account of pendency of litigation. Further, whether
the candidates of the said select list have a vested right of appointment
and cannot be put to any disadvantage on account of the act of the Court
and the Division Bench of this Court concluded that the action of the
7 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 8
State Government to cancel the recruitment process once the select list
has been issued without having challenging the orders of the learned
Single Judge only on account of the pendency of the litigation also
cannot be appreciated in any manner and once the select list has been
forwarded to the Government, the rights of the selected candidates
cannot be adversely affected by cancelling the advertisement. As such,
the candidates have a vested right at the time when litigation was
initiated being on the select list when the names have been forwarded by
the Corporation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation,
at the outset, submits that the petitioners have no vested right to claim
appointment merely on the basis of participation in the selection
process. Further, the respondent/Corporation was bound by the
directions issued by this Court in Ludhiana Hand Tools Association’s
case (supra), and only 1,000 posts were ordered to be filled up and the
order passed by the Division Bench of this Court has been duly
complied with. Learned counsel for the respondent/Corporation further
submits that the issue raised in the present writ petitions has been duly
considered by this Court in CWP-227-2014, titled as Berojgar
Linemen Union (Punjab) and others vs Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and another, decided on 02.07.2015 and in CWP-
1025-2014, titled as Balwinder Singh and others vs Punjab State
Power Corporation Limited and others, decided on 08.08.2016. He
submits that the Coordinate Benches of this Court, while examining the
8 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 9
validity of the decision taken by the Board of Directors on 03.02.2014
as well as the applicability of the judgment rendered in U.P. State
Transport Corporation‘s case (supra), dismissed the said writ petitions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
perusal of the record, this Court finds that the controversy raised in the
present writ petitions is no longer res integra. The issue with regard to
recruitment of Linemen pursuant to advertisement No.CRA-267 of 2011
and the decision of the respondent/Corporation dated 03.02.2014 to
restrict the recruitment to 1,000 posts and to cancel the recruitment
against the remaining posts has already been considered and decided by
the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Berojgar Linemen Union’s
case (supra) and Balwinder Singh‘s case (supra).
8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Berojgar Linemen
Union‘s case (supra), has categorically held that the recruitment
pursuant to advertisement No.CRA-267 of 2011, has to be treated as
confined to 1000 posts and the vacancies arising thereafter are future
vacancies which cannot be filled from the prepared merit list pursuant to
the said advertisement. The relevant observations read as under:
“I am unable to agree with the contentions of the Ld.
Counsel for the petitioner and am of the view that the
present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
At the outset, it is necessary to remind oneself of the
settled legal position that even successful candidates have
no indefeasible legal right to be appointed and such
appointment can be denied for good and rational grounds.
9 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 10
This position has been affirmed times without
number. One need only refer the Constitution Bench
decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3
SCC 47, wherein, it was observed as under:
“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate
number of candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be
appointed which cannot be legitimately denied.
Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an
invitation to qualified candidates to apply for
recruitment and on their selection they do not
acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant
recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no
legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies.
However, it does not mean that the State has the
licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken
bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the
vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is
bound to respect the comparative merit of the
candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and
no discrimination can be permitted. This correct
position has been consistently followed by this
Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the
decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander
Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or
Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab.”
As the selected candidates have no enforceable legal
right to appointment, it has been also held that no
mandamus can be claimed for appointment. In this context
the following observations are pertinent:
S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479, at page
484:
13. In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha
this Court held: (SCC p. 226, paras 10-11)
“10. E The mere fact that a candidate’s name
appears in the list will not entitle him to a
10 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 11
mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the
State Government while making the selection
for appointment had departed from the
ranking given in the list, there would have
been a legitimate grievance on the ground that
the State Government had departed from the
rules in this respect….
11. It must be remembered that the petition is for a
mandamus. This Court has pointed out in Rai
Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College that in
order that mandamus may issue to compel an
authority to do something, it must be shown that the
statute imposes a legal duty on that authority and the
aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to
enforce its performance. Since there is no legal duty
on the State Government to appoint all the 15
persons who are in the list and the petitioners have
no legal right under the rules to enforce its
performance the petition is clearly misconceived.”
14. In Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah
Zangiti this Court held: (SCC p. 273, para 32)
“32. E A candidate does not have any legal
right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16
of the Constitution of India has only a right to
be considered therefor. Consideration of the
case of an individual candidate although
ordinarily is required to be made in terms of
the extant rules but strict adherence thereto
would be necessary in a case where the rules
operate only to the disadvantage of the
candidates concerned and not otherwise.”
In the present case, no doubt, vide CRA 267/11,
tentatively 5000 vacancies of Linemen were advertised. But
because of CWP No.4881 of 2011 having been filed
wherein this recruitment was questioned, initially, the
respondent-Corporation was restrained from making
appointment. It was only tater, vide order dated 9.11.2011,
1000 posts of linemen were permitted to be filled up. These
11 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 12
orders thus furnished the compelling reason for the
nonappointment in the year 2011 and hence the petitioners
can raise no grievance regarding the same.
The petition was finally disposed of on 27.11.2013,
with directions reproduced earlier which are being
interpreted by the parties in their favour. The question is,
whether the interpretation of the petitioners is the correct
one and consistent with law or the one of the respondents.
In my view, the interpretation of the petitioners
cannot be accepted and the orders dated 27.11.2013 in
CWP No.4881 of 2011 cannot be understood to mean that
any further appointment to the Linemen is to be made only
from out of the merit list prepared pursuant to CRA 267/11,
whereby, applications had been invited for recruitment of
5000 Linemen. CWP No.4881 of 2011 which was a Public
Interest Petition was filed seeking a stay on the recruitment
of 5000 linemen on the ground that this would result in
wasteful expenditure and it was this issue that the Court
was seized of in that petition. The report that the
Commission prepared on the directions of the Court also
dealt with this issue. The Commission in its report dated
19.9.2011 concluded that PSPCL/ PSTCL should recruit
Linemen/ SSAs against CRA No. 267/11 in line with PwC
reports. Thus, in my view, Ld. Counsel for the respondents
is right in his assertion that this recommendation of the
Commission only means that only such number of posts be
filled against CRA 267/11 as are recommended in the PwC
report to be filled in the year 2011. Ld. Counsel for the
respondent-Corporation is also right in his assertion that
this recommendation does not mean and could not be read
to mean that all subsequent appointments of Linemen
12 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 13
whenever to be made in later years should to be from the
merit of candidates who applied in response to CRA 267/11
till 5000 Linemen are appointed. He is right when he
asserts that this would be akin to saying that a selection
panel prepared far in excess of the available vacancies
should operate indefinitely to fill vacancies which will
arise in future as well till the panel is exhausted.
As per the recruitment plan prepared for the
respondent Corporation in the PwC report, 1000 linemen
were to be recruited in 2011. In 2012, 500 Linemen were to
be recruited. Similarly 500 Linemen were to be recruited in
2013, and 350 each were to be recruited in the years 2014
and 2015. This Court approved the recommendations of the
Commission, which in turn had approved of this PwC
report. As only 1000 posts were permitted to be filled up in
2011, hence against the advertisement issued in the year
2011 posts in excess of 1000 posts could not be filled up.
Nor could the posts for the subsequent recruitment years be
filled based on this advertisement. Ld. Counsel for the
respondents is right that this would be tantamount to
advertising future vacancies, a course which has been held
to be impermissible by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such a
course would result in deprivation of the rights under
Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of the candidates who
have become eligible subsequent to the earlier
advertisement.
The proposition that future vacancies cannot be
advertised as these would result in deprivation of the rights
of candidates who become eligible subsequently has been
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in large number of
cases.
13 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 14
Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB, (1996) 4 SCC 319, at
page 330:
22. In State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh this
Court held that the advertisement and the whole
selection process were meant only for 32 vacancies.
The process came to an end as soon as these
vacancies were filled up. If the same list has to be
kept alive for the purpose of filling up of other
vacancies, it would amount to deprivation of rights
of other candidates who would have become
eligible subsequent to the said advertisement and
the selection process.
23. In State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh, this
Court has in terms held that if the advertisement and
the consequent selection process were meant only to
fill up a certain number of vacancies then the merit
list will hold good for the purpose of filling up those
notified vacancies and no further. In that case 32
vacancies were advertised but a select list of 129
candidates was prepared. A question arose whether
more candidates could be appointed on the basis of
the said select list. This Court held that once the 32
vacancies were filled up the process of selection for
those 32 vacancies got exhausted and came to an
end. It was further held that if the same list has to
be kept subsisting for the purpose of filling up other
vacancies also that would naturally amount to
deprivation of rights of other candidates who would
have become eligible subsequent to the said
advertisement and selection process…
25. From the above discussion of the case-law it
becomes clear that the selection process by way of
requisition and advertisement can be started for
clear vacancies and also for anticipated vacancies
but not for future vacancies. If the requisition and
advertisement are for a certain number of posts only
the State cannot make more appointments than the
number of posts advertised, even though it might
have prepared a select list of more candidates. The
State can deviate from the advertisement and make
14 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 15
appointments on posts falling vacant thereafter in
exceptional circumstances only or in an emergent
situation and that too by taking a policy decision in
that behalf. Even when filling up of more posts than
advertised is challenged the court may not, while
exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction, invalidate
the excess appointments and may mould the relief in
such a manner as to strike a just balance between
the interest of the State and the interest of persons
seeking public employment. What relief should be
granted in such cases would depend upon the facts
and circumstances of each case.”
In the same manner in Hoshiar Singh v. State of
Haryana, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 377, it was observed:
10. The learned counsel for these appellants have
not been able to show that after the revised
requisition dated January 24, 1991 whereby the
Board was requested to send its recommendation for
8 posts, any further requisition was sent by the
Director General of Police for a larger number of
posts. Since the requisition was for eight posts of
Inspector of Police, the Board was required to send
its recommendations for eight posts only. The Board,
on its own, could not recommend names of 19
persons for appointment even though the requisition
was for eight posts only because the selection and
recommendation of larger number of persons than
the posts for which requisition is sent. The
appointment on the additional posts on the basis of
such selection and recommendation would deprive
candidates who were not eligible for appointment to
the posts on the last date for submission of
applications mentioned in the advertisement and
who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of
the opportunity of being considered for
appointment on the additional posts because if the
said additional posts are advertised subsequently
those who become eligible for appointment would
be entitled to apply for the same. The High Court
was, therefore, right in holding that the selection of
15 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 16
19 persons by the Board even though the requisition
was for 8 posts only, was not legally sustainable.”
To the same effect are the observations in Mukul
Saikia v. State of Assam, (2009) 1 SCC 386, at page 395:
“33. At the outset it should be noticed that the select
list prepared by APSC could be used to fill the
notified vacancies and not future vacancies. If the
requisition and advertisement was only for 27 posts,
the State cannot appoint more than the number of
posts advertised, even though APSC had prepared a
select list of 64 candidates. The select list got
exhausted when all the 27 posts were filled.
Thereafter, the candidates below the 27 appointed
candidates have no right to claim appointment to
any vacancy in regard to which selection was not
held. The fact that evidently and admittedly the
names of the appellants appeared in the select list
dated 17-7-2000 below the persons who have been
appointed on merit against the said 27 vacancies,
and as such they could not have been appointed in
excess of the number of posts advertised as the
currency of select list had expired as soon as the
number of posts advertised are filled up, therefore,
appointments beyond the number of posts
advertised would amount to filling up future
vacancies meant for direct candidates in violation
of quota rules. Therefore, the appellants are not
entitled to claim any relief for themselves. The
question that remains for consideration is whether
there is any ground for challenging the
regularisation of the private respondents.”
Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC
637, at page 640 :
“7. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies
cannot be filled up over and above the number of
vacancies advertised as “the recruitment of the
candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a
denial and deprivation of the constitutional right
under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the16 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 17Constitution”, of those persons who acquired
eligibility for the post in question in accordance
with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of
notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies
over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor
desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to
“improper exercise of power and only in a rare and
exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation,
such a rule can be deviated from and such a
deviation is permissible only after adopting policy
decision based on some rationale”, otherwise the
exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies
over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of
future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.
(Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, Gujarat
State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of
Gujarat, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt.
Successful Examinees Union 1986, Prem Singh v.
Haryana SEB and Ashok Kumar v. Banking Service
Recruitment Board.)”
Arup Das v. State of Assam, (2012) 5 SCC 559, at
page 563:
“17. It is well established that an authority
cannot make any selection/appointment beyond the
number of posts advertised, even if there were a
larger number of posts available than those
advertised. The principle behind the said decision is
that if that was allowed to be done, such action
would be entirely arbitrary and violative of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution, since other
candidates who had chosen not to apply for the
vacant posts which were being sought to be filled,
could have also applied if they had known that the
other vacancies would also be under consideration
for being filled up.”
Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, 1992 Supp
(3) SCC 84, at page 86 :
“4. Mr Subba Rao for the appellant urged that the
candidates included in the panels prepared by the17 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 18Selection Board as far back in June 1984 cannot be
held to have the right to appointment against
vacancies arising subsequent to preparation of the
panels. According to counsel, if that right is
conceded it would be arbitrary and contrary to
Article 16(1) of the Constitution which guarantees
opportunity for all citizens in matters of employment
or appointment to any office under the State. There is
little doubt about this proposition. The selected
candidates ordinarily will have a right to
appointment against vacancies notified or available
till the select list is prepared. They in any event
cannot have a right against future vacancies.”
Thus, the advertisement CRA 267/11 has be read as
being limited to 1000 posts of linemen. Such number of
linemen had been appointed after the order dated
9.11.2011 of this Court. The posts permitted to be filled up
in the subsequent years 2012-2015 as per the recruitment
plan prepared by the PwC and approved by the
Commission in its report dated 19.9.2011, cannot be filled
up on the basis of CRA 267/11, as these have to be treated
as future vacancies vis- a- vis this advertisement. For
filling up these posts permitted to be filled in the years
2012 and 2013, rightly the impugned advertisement has
been issued.
Further it is well settled that a selection list
prepared can remain valid only for such limited period as
prescribed under the relevant rules. If appointments are
not made within the said period, then fresh selection is
required to be made. Usually the selection list has a
validity of only one year. In the present case no rules have
been relied upon by the petitioners to show that the
selection list would remain valid even for three-four
years. As the petitioners have failed to establish any right
18 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 19
in this regard the petition merits dismissal on this ground
as well.
Accordingly, there is no merit in the present petition
and the same is dismissed.”
9. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Balwinder Singh’s
case (supra) while relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in
Berojgar Linemen Union‘s case (supra) has dismissed the similar
claims and held that the petitioners had failed to establish any
enforceable right to appointment.
10. Since the issue involved in the present writ petitions has
already attained finality before the Coordinate Benches of this Court in
Berojgar Linemen Union‘s case (supra) and Balwinder Singh‘s case
(supra), therefore, this Court cannot take a view contrary to the view
already expressed. It is a settled principle of judicial discipline that a
Coordinate Bench is bound to follow the judgment of an earlier
Coordinate Bench.
11. Moreover, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioners on the interim orders passed in earlier rounds of litigation
granting age relaxation also does not advance the case of the petitioners,
as such directions were issued only to enable the petitioners to
participate in subsequent recruitment processes and cannot be construed
as creating any vested right in their favour for appointment under the
advertisement No.CRA-267 of 2011.
12. Furthermore, even if the petitioners are granted the benefit
of age relaxation in terms of the directions issued by this Court in earlier
19 of 20
::: Downloaded on – 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::
CWP-12999-2020
CWP-19647-2020 20
proceedings, the same would not confer any right of appointment upon
them in view of the binding judgments cited by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Berojgar Linemen Union‘s case (supra).
13. In view of the foregoing reasons, finding no merit in the
present writ petitions, the same are hereby dismissed.
14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other
connected case.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
27.02.2026
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
20 of 20
::: Downloaded on - 28-02-2026 07:00:33 :::