R.P. Sethi, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) The appellants who were admittedly selected for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Civil) had prayed for the issuance of a direction to the respondents for their appointment to the post to which they were selected but the petition filed by them was dismissed mainly on the ground that as the respondent-Board had abolished 27 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and 93 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil), no direction as prayed for could be issued to it. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in view of Annexures P/15 and P/16 filed with the review application submitted before the learned Single Judge, the contention of the respondents that some posts were abolished was without any basis.
(3.) It is conceded at the Bar that mere selection does not confer a right upon on a citizen to seek appointment. It has also been conceded that the selection once made cannot be brushed aside while making appointments. The only point for determination is as to whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the petition in view of the averment of the Board that 27 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and 93 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) had been abolished. It may not be out of place to mention that respondents in their written statement filed in the writ petition had specifically stated:- "As the charges of civil engineering work decreased, the respondent-Board had to abolish certain posts. From 12.9.89 i.e. the date of the issue of the Advertisement No. CRA-162/89, 17 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and 27 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) were abolished upto 27.10.90 and 15.2.1990, respectively which represents the dates by which the panels for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and Junior Engineer (Civil), were finalised. Upto date, as many as 27 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) and 93 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) have been abolished, due to which even some existing employees of the respondent-Board in these two cadres have been rendered surplus and are being adjusted elsewhere." It is also not disputed that no rejoinder was filed to the written statement filed by the respondents. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, justified in passing the impugned judgment by which the claim of the appellants/petitioners was rejected. It has been conceded before us that after the selection of the appellants no appointment has so far been made by the Board to the aforesaid posts. The learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that the learned Single Judge while deciding the review petition should have referred to Annexures P-15 and P-16 and summoned the record of the respondents to ascertain as to whether the aforesaid posts had actually been abolished and even if the aforesaid posts stood abolished the same could not be held to have been abolished in the category of scheduled castes. The learned Single Judge while deciding the review petition has rightly held:- "Review of judgment has been sought on the basis of two documents produced by the applicants as Annexures P-15 and P-16. The first of these two documents is a letter dated February 10, 1989 by which the tentative seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) as it stood on June 30, 1988 was circulated for the purpose of inviting objections. The second document is a letter date April 2, 1990 by which the tentative seniority list of Junior Engineers-II (Civil) for the period from June 1, 1984 to June 30, 1988 was circulated. Neither of the two documents shows that the averment made on behalf of the respondent -Board to the effect that the posts had been abolished after the advertisement in September, 1989 is false. As such, it is impossible for me to conclude that the judgment is vitiated by any error of fact and, therefore, calls for a review.";