S.S. Sandhawalia, J. - (1.) WHETHER a mere selection by a Departmental Committee would vest and indefeasible right of appointment to the post, in the selected individual, is the somewhat meaningful issue which in essence, arises for determination in this Letters Patent Appeal. ,
(2.) IN pursuance of an advertisement issued by the Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, in the Daily Tribune way back on March 28, 1968, the three Respondent -writ Petitioners submitted their applications for the post of J.B.T. Teachers. The precise qualifications prescribed for the post in the advertisement were Matriculation with two years' course in the Junior Basic Training. Admittedly, the Applicants at the material time did not possess the prescribed qualifications and mentioned in their applications that they had, as yet appeared in Part II of the Junior Basic Training Course and were awaiting their result. It is the common case that some inordinate delay intervened betwixt the receipt of applications and the selection that followed. The Punjab Subordinate Services Selection Board, which had originally called for the applications was meanwhile dissolved and apparently a Departmental Selection Committee was entrusted with the duties of selection. This Committee, on February 13, 1970 interviewed the Petitioners. It appears that during the passage of these two years, the three writ Petitioners had passed the J.B.T. examination only in June, 1969. The Departmental Selection Committee then prepared the merit list for the district of Ferozepur and the writ -Petitioners names figured at Serial Nos. 497, 459 and 630 thereof. However, on an examination of the writ Petitioners original academic certificates, they were directed to clear an examination in Hindi because the prescribed requirement was that only those who fulfilled the qualification of the Hindi Matric standard would be eligible for appointment. The writ Petitioners stand further was that they were called upon to choose their stations of posting but this assertion was categorically denied in the written statement. Meanwhile the Appellant -State came to a policy decision and issued instructions on the 4th of May, 1972 to the effect that only those candidates who fulfilled the requisite qualifications on the 20th of April, 1968 (i.e. on or about the last date for the receipt of the applications) would be considered for appointment and not those who had qualified much later. As a necessary consequence the writ Petitioners who had admittedly acquired the prescribed qualifications one year and two months after the prescribed date were not appointed to the posts. Aggrieved thereby they preferred the writ petition which stands allowed on the finding that they were entitled to appointments and a mandamus in the following terms had been issued: Consequently the petition is allowed with costs and it is directed that the Petitioners be given appointments against J.B.T. posts for which they had been selected.
(3.) NOW the forceful and the weighty contention of Mr. Sethi, learned Additional Advocate -General, Punjab, on behalf of the Appellant -State in assailing the judgment under appeal is that a mere selection or inclusion of a person's name in a merit list would not by itself vest any legal right of appointment to a post. It was contended that till the actual issue of an appointment letter, no indefeasible rights accrue. Consequently it was submitted that indeed no mandamus directing the appointment of a person merely selected, as in the present case, can possibly issue.;