Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

B.S. Bajwa vs Union Of India And Others on 4 March, 2024

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030491


                                                                2024:PHHC:030491

CWP-30191-2019                                                                     -1-




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


210                                             CWP-30191-2019
                                                Date of Decision: 04.03.2024


B.S. Bajwa                                                             ...Petitioner



                                      Versus



Union of India and others                                          ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:-     Petitioner in person
              Mr. Sudhir Nar, Senior Panel Counsel,
              for Union of India-respondents
              ***


JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of interview-cum-selection process held on 14.02.2019 for the post of officer in-charge, ECHS Polyclinic, Mohali.

2. The claim of the petitioner is that he was found at No.1 in the merit list still he was not selected for the post on account of illegal act and omissions of the respondents. He fairly concedes that at present he is overage and cannot be considered for the post.

3. The petitioner, faced with the situation that he cannot be permitted to work because he is already overage, submits that some amount of 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2024 05:36:08 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030491 2024:PHHC:030491 CWP-30191-2019 -2- compensation should be awarded because he was not at fault and he was deprived to work on account of lapse on the part of respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was no lapse on the part of respondents and petitioner, at present, is overage. This Court even if accepts contention of the petitioner cannot determine amount of claim, if any.

5. The respondent, at this belated stage, cannot be asked to avail service of the petitioner who at present is overage. The question whether petitioner was rightly denied opportunity to serve and if he was wrongly denied the said opportunity, whether he is entitled to compensation or not and what would be amount of compensation, are disputed questions of fact which cannot be determined by this Court while invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies as permissible by law.





                                                         (JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
                                                               JUDGE
04.03.2024
Manoj
                  Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes/No
                  Whether reportable                   Yes/No




Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:030491 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 05-03-2024 05:36:08 :::