Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljinder Singh vs Unknown on 10 January, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
CWP No. 25091 of 2013 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 25091 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10.1.2014
Baljinder Singh
.. Petitioner
v.
Principal Secretary and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
..
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition is that due reservation for Freedom Fighters Category was not provided for in the advertisement issued by Subordinate Services Selection Board, Punjab for appointment on the post of Up-Vaid.
Last date for receiving the applications was 22.7.2011. In the advertisement, reservation was provided for different categories of candidates. One post was reserved for Freedom Fighters Category. The petitioner in the present case was not at No. 1 in the merit list in the category of Freedom Fighters. However, it is submitted that only two candidates in the category of Freedom Fighters were called for counselling, hence, it is claimed that the petitioner was at No. 2 in the merit list. A direction is sought for his appointment on the ground that in the information, which has been received by the petitioner more than one year after the selection process was initiated that there was backlog of two posts in the category of Freedom Fighters, whereas only one post was advertised.
The fact remains that the petitioner did not raise any grievance about the number of posts advertised in Freedom Fighters category in the year 2011, when the advertisement was issued and the selection process was Kumar Manoj 2014.01.14 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 25091 of 2013 [2] completed. The issue is sought to be raised now after two years have elapsed and especially when a fresh advertisement had already been issued on 3.11.2012 (Annexure P-10) for filling up of vacant posts of Up-Vaid.
Considering the aforesaid factual matrix, where the selection process, against which the petitioner is now seeking to be appointed, was over about two years back and fresh advertisement had already been issued, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.1.2014 mk Kumar Manoj 2014.01.14 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document