Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar vs Registrar on 29 January, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN JAB AN D HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.3985 of 1992
DATE OF DECISION: January 29,2014
Pardeep Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana and others
......Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.S.S.Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.
None for the respondents.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of selection of respondent Nos.6 and 7 to the post of Peon for which applications were invited on 20.12.1991. The said selection has been challenged by raising various arguments.
Notice of motion was issued on 26.3.1992 and writ petition was admitted on 30.7.1992. The selected candidates joined their duties and are working since then.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and without going into the merits and demerits of the selection, it would not be appropriate and in the interest of justice to dislodge the selected candidates/private respondents after a period of more than twenty one years. In an identical facts Sehra Kamal Deep 2014.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh 2 Civil Writ Petition No.3985 of 1992 and circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court in Shanti Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others 1999(2) SLR 259 has observed as under:
"Despite the above, we feel reluctant to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The reason which compels us to do so is that the respondents have in fact continued on these posts for the last more than 15 years. In this situation, it would be extremely harsh to them and their families if they are now thrown out of service. They would have admittedly become overage for other posts. We are conscious of the fact that mere delay should not be a ground for putting a seal of approval on illegal appointments. Nor should such a concession encourage the Department to appoint ineligible persons in future. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case and without intending to lay down a precedent, we choose not to interference so as to avoid hardship to respondents No.3 to 15."
Similar controversy was also adjudicated by this Court in bunch of cases in Krishan Kumar and others v. The Hisar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others CWP No.16166 of 1991, decided on 9.2.2011.
Sehra Kamal Deep 2014.02.06 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh 3
Civil Writ Petition No.3985 of 1992 The ratio of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments "mutatis mutandis" is attracted in the present case and is squarely covered the controversy in hand.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
January 29,2014 (Daya Chaudhary)
KD Judge
Sehra Kamal Deep
2014.02.06 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court. Chandigarh
4
Civil Writ Petition No.3985 of 1992
Sehra Kamal Deep
2014.02.06 16:23
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court. Chandigarh