Ram Pal vs State of Punjab

Rameshwar Singh Malik, J.—Petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to him for the post of Clerk, in the category of backward class, in view of the orders passed by this Court in CWP No. 20272 of 2004; decided on 3.2.2009; Amrik Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others (Annexure P-7).

Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents. Writ petition was admitted for regular hearing. That is how, this Court is seized of the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner was not party to CWP No. 20272 of 2004 (Amrik Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others), yet the respondent-authorities were duty bound to consider the claim of the petitioner to issue appointment letter for the post of clerk on the basis of his merit in the selection list. He further submits that since respondents did not consider the claim of the petitioner, action of the respondents was not only arbitrary but it was contemptuous as well. He prays for allowing the present writ petition.

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the selection in question was finalized pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.7.1997 (Annexure P-1). Selection list was prepared way back on 26.5.2001 (Annexure P-3). Petitioner did not challenge the selection, nor he raised any grievance before the respondent-authorities before filing the present writ petition solely on the basis of order dated 3.2.2009 passed by this Court. She also submitted that the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 20272 of 2004, to which the petitioner was not party, will not grant any cause of action in favour of the petitioner. Learned State counsel next contended that order dated 3.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20272 of 2004 was meticulously complied with. However, the vacancies against which the candidates were earlier appointed by changing their categories, were abolished. It is so said in paras-13 and 14 of the written statement. She further clarified that some of the candidates whose services were terminated in compliance of the order dated 3.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20272 of 2004, challenged their termination order before this Court and their termination was stayed. One of such writ petition is CWP No. 9469 of 2009. She also submits that after compliance of the order dated 3.2.2009, no person lower in merit than the petitioner was appointed. She prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, the instant one is not a fit case to exercise the writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, at the hands of this Court. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.

It is the own pleaded case of the petitioner that he applied in response to the advertisement dated 20.7.1997 (Annexure P-1). He was one of the selected candidates. Result of selection was declared on 26.5.2001 (Annexure P-3). Since the petitioner did not feel aggrieved, he did not challenge the selection process nor he approached this Court for any other relief at any earlier point of time. In such a situation, order dated 3.2.2009 passed by this Court in CWP No. 20272 of 2004 will not grant any cause of action in favour of the petitioner. It is so said, because the petitioner has been sleeping over his right for an ordinate long time for more than 8 years. Thus, the present petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed, for this reason alone.

It is neither pleaded nor argued case on behalf of the petitioner that any person lower in merit than the petitioner has been appointed, ignoring his better and preferential claim. So far as the abolition of the posts was concerned, petitioner did not challenge the said action of the respondent-State. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any particular number of vacancies were available against which the petitioner could have been appointed. In view of these startling facts, petitioner has no case either on facts or in law. Further, mere selection does not grant indefeasible right of appointment in favour of the petitioner.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance, thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.

Resultantly, instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.