Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chander Mohan vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 July, 2009
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.156 of 2007 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.7.2009
Chander Mohan.
-----Appellant
Vs.
State of Haryana and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. G.S. Bal, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
-----
ORDER:
1. The appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of his writ petition against his non-consideration for the post of Storeman Class-III.
2. His case was that he made an application which was complete, while case of the Department was that the application was not complete as certificate of Matriculation was not annexed. The Learned Single Judge observed that selections were made by a Selection Committee after following the necessary criteria and there was no illegality or malafide.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
4. There were two original writ petitioners. Apart from appellant No.1, other writ petitioner was Khushwant Singh. He LPA No.156 of 2007 2 filed LPA No.92 of 2007, which was allowed. He was at serial No.3 in the Waiting List and appointment had been made of a person, lower to him in the Waiting List. The Division Bench in its order dated 4.10.2008 in LPA No.92 of 2007 Khushwant Singh v. State of Haryana and others, observed that at this distant point of time, this Court could not interfere with the appointments already made. However, direction for appointment of Khushwant Singh was made as one post was available and Khushwant Singh was higher in the merit to the person already appointed.
5. In the present case, the appellant was never considered. Appointments were made after following due procedure by the Selection Committee in the year 1995. Irrespective of merits on the question of application being in order, it will not be practicable to set aside the process of selections and the selections made, long back. The appellant is already in service on the said post.
6. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
July 23, 2009 ( DAYA CHAUDHARY )
ashwani JUDGE