Judgment:
Alok Singh, J.
1. Appellant is assailing order dated 19.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge whereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner- appellant seeking mandamus to issue appointment to him.
2. Brief facts present case are that the petitioner was interviewed for the post of Cane Adviser in the respondent-Federation on 04.12.2008; the petitioner was informed that he was at number one in the order of merit; despite the fact that the petitioner was at number one in the order of merit, he was not given appointment. Main contention in the petition is that once selection is over and the petitioner was at umber one in the merit then the respondents cannot act in arbitrary manner deciding not to fill up the vacancies.
3. Learned Single Judge has held that thereafter, rules were framed and selection as per new rules was to be made through the Haryana Public Service Commission, hence in view of this, decision of the respondents not to fill up the vacancies, is a good ground. Learned Single Judge has further held that mere selection does not give any right to seek appointment.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 1991(2) SLR 779, argued that the State has no licence to act in arbitrary manner and the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons.
6. We have carefully perused the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan's case (supra).
7. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra), it can very well be said that a selected candidate does not have any indefeasible right of appointment even if the vacancy exists.
8. Undisputedly, the respondents have decided to fill up the vacancies through the Haryana Public Service Commission, hence, it seems to be a valid ground not to issue appointment to the petitioner despite the fact that the petitioner was selected. We find no reason to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge.
9. Appeal is devoid of merit and hence, is dismissed.