CWP-3707-2014 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3707-2014 (O&M) Reserved on : 09.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2026 Date of Uploading : 24.07.2026 Sorrabh Sameer Sharma and others ......Petitioners Vs. Central Recruitment Agency, Punjab and Haryana High Court, through its Registrar ......Respondent Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Gursimran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Supriya Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The petitioners in the present writ petition are asking for direction, calling for the records of selection process and for setting aside order dated 21.01.2014, whereby representation filed by the petitioners has been rejected. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent invited on-line applications vide advertisement dated 05.01.2012 for recruitment of 297 posts of Clerks in various Sessions Divisions of Punjab. Written test was held on 16.09.2012. Result of the written test was declared and candidates, VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.24 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3707-2014 (O&M) -2- who cleared the written test were shortlisted for Computer Proficiency Test to be held on 15.12.2012. Petitioners passed the Computer Proficiency Test and were called for interaction/checking of original documents. Ultimately, in the select list, petitioners were kept in the waiting list. As per the averments in the writ petition, the respondent Committee took a decision to prepare the waiting list and to fill up the vacant post from the list of waiting list candidates. Petitioners gave their representation to the respondent regarding filling of the posts by considering the waiting list. The same was not decided. Petitioners filed CWP-21636-2013. While disposing of the said writ petition, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioners. The representation filed by the petitioners was considered and rejected by the respondent. Hence, the present writ petition. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners were in the waiting list, therefore, process for fresh recruitment for the same posts should not have been initiated and the waiting list should have been exhausted by filling the unfilled posts because of non-joining/resignation of the selected candidates. He, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioners have no right for appointment to the posts since they were in the waiting list. In support of her contention, she relies upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Jayamohan Vs. State of VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.24 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3707-2014 (O&M) -3- Kerala, 1997(3) S.C.T. 26, Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Prasad and others, 2004(1) S.C.T. 904 and Raj Rishi Mehra and others Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2013(4) S.C.T. 476. She, therefore, prays that the present writ petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. 6. A perusal of the file shows that impugned order dated 21.01.2014 is detailed and self-speaking order. The petitioners are asking for their claim against 07 vacancies at Ferozepur which had occurred due to non-joining/resignation of the selected candidates. As per the record, the petitioners were at Serial Nos.26, 38, 57, 52, 33, 27, 36 and 55 in order of merit out of 58 candidates, who were in consideration zone in the waiting list. Further, vacant posts were re-advertized along with other posts and thereafter, the selection process of the new recruitment as well is also over. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in K. Jayamohan’s case (supra) held that mere selection and being kept in waiting list does not give any absolute right for appointment, Government may or may not appoint even if there is any vacancy. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Bihar State Electricity Board’s case (supra) further held that mere selection does not give any indefeasible right of appointment to a candidate. 8. In view of the above referred to law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the reply filed by the respondent, which shows that even in the waiting list, petitioners were at Serial Nos.26, 38, 57, 52, 33, 27, 36 VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.24 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-3707-2014 (O&M) -4- and 55, respectively, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.07.24 18:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document