Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shanta Devi And Anr vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 26 November, 2014
Author: Rajesh Bindal
Bench: Rajesh Bindal
CWP No. 2130 of 2001 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 2130 of 2001 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.11.2014
Smt. Shanta Devi and another
.. Petitioners
v.
The State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. R. K. Malik, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Kuldeep Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. H. N. Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No. 3.
...
Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioners have approached this court impugning the communication dated 15.1.2001 (Annexure P-9), whereby their claim for giving appointment as Principal beyond the advertised vacancies in the year 1995 on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government on 28.10.1993, which were later on withdrawn, was rejected.
The fact that the petitioners were not in the select list of 11 posts of Principal advertised is not in dispute. They were in the waiting list. The claim is sought to be made on the basis of the instructions issued by the Government on 28.10.1993. As per the stand in the reply, recommendations for appointment of 11 candidates were received from Haryana Public Service Commission (for short, 'the Commission') by the department concerned on 28.6.1995 and they were given appointment. The writ petition was filed in the year 2001. All the recommended candidates joined as MANOJ KUMAR 2014.12.01 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 2130 of 2001 [2] Principal. It is not a case that any post remained vacant. The instructions, on the basis of which the petitioners sought to stake their claim, were revised on 27.2.1998 providing that claim for appointment by a candidate from the waiting list could be made within a period of six months and that too only in case a recommended candidate does not join. The petitioners are seeking to claim that during currency of the waiting list, some new posts had become available and they should be given appointment against that. Such a claim cannot be accepted being contrary to law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Arup Das and others v. State of Assam and others, (2012) 5 SCC 559 and further the petition is also barred on account of delay and laches having been filed in the year 2001 pertaining to advertisement issued in the year 1994, against which recommendations were made by the Commission to the Government on 28.6.1995.
For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge 26.11.2014 mk MANOJ KUMAR 2014.12.01 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document