Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dhaninder Jit Singh vs Secretary To The Government Of Punjab on 27 March, 2012
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No. 2283 of 2011
Date of Decision : March 27, 2012
Dhaninder Jit Singh
....Appellant
Versus
Secretary to the Government of Punjab
Department of School Education and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Mr. Surmukh Singh, Advocate
T.P.S. MANN, J.
The instant appeal filed by the appellant under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated September 15, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (C.W.P. No.17256 of 2011) filed by the appellant for challenging the selection and appointment of respondent No.4 as Subject Expert (Computer), was dismissed.
It was averred by the appellant that he was appointed as a Clerk in the Punjab School Education Board, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') in the year 1993 on ad hoc basis. Later on, his services were regularised and, presently, Letters Patent Appeal No. 2283 of 2011 -2- he is working as a Junior Assistant. During his service he remained posted in the Computer Cell of the Board and performed the duties and responsibilities of the Computer Operator/Programmer. However, Gurtej Singh-respondent No.4, who was close to the Chairman of the Board and also working as a Junior Assistant, was picked up and posted as Project Officer vide order dated 17.3.2005 (Annexure P-3). His appointment was in contravention of the principles of promotion/selection, besides being discriminatory and against the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India because no applications in that regard were invited. Later on, respondent No.4 was posted/promoted as Senior Project Officer vide order dated 24.3.2008 (Annexure P-4). This time again, method of pick and choose was adopted and proper procedure was not followed. In order to give further promotion to respondent No.4, the Deputy Director of the Board requisitioned one post of Subject Expert (Computer) by converting the post of Subject Expert (General) to Subject Expert (Computer). It was followed by applications being invited for filling the post of Subject Expert (Computer). In the advertisement dated 5.8.2008 (Annexure P-5), it was mentioned that upper age limit for the prospective candidates would be 35 years and those, who were in service, should apply through proper channel. In fact, the upper age limit of 35 years was fixed keeping in view the fact that respondent No.4 was 28 years of age Letters Patent Appeal No. 2283 of 2011 -3- whereas the appellant was about 46 years of age, his date of birth being 30.11.1962. Though the appellant applied for the said post of Subject Expert (Computer) yet his application was rejected because of being overage. The apprehension in the mind of the appellant that the Board was out to appoint respondent No.4 as Subject Expert (Computer) became true when he was appointed as such vide order dated 24.9.2008 (Annexure P-15). As his application for the post of Subject Expert (Computer) was not considered and in order to challenge the appointment of respondent No.4 as Subject Expert(Computer), the appellant filed the aforementioned writ petition which was, however, dismissed vide impugned order on the ground of delay in filing the said petition and also the fact that the selection made in the year 2008 could not be quashed simply on the stand of the appellant that he was more meritorious than respondent No.4.
When confronted with the observations made by the learned Single Judge regarding the delay in filing the writ petition, learned counsel submitted that after the issuance of the appointment letter dated 24.9.2008 (Annexure P-15), the appellant was not supplied complete information by the respondent-Board. Moreover, respondent No.2-Chairman of the Board had threatened the appellant with dire consequences in case he filed any petition against the appointment of respondent Letters Patent Appeal No. 2283 of 2011 -4- No.4. It was only after finding a suitable time that the appellant filed the writ petition in order to highlight the policy of granting back door entry to respondent No.4 in the office of the respondent-Board by first promoting him from Clerk to Project Officer, then to Senior Project Officer and, thereafter, to the post of Subject Expert (Computer). It has also been stated that respondent No.4 has now been given the additional charge of the post of Deputy Director (Computer).
Having gone through the averments made in the writ petition, we find that no such pleas were ever taken by the appellant to explain as to why he did not file the same immediately after issuance of appointment letter dated 24.9.2008 (Annexure P-15) and waited for a period of about three years. Therefore, the plea taken by him in the present appeal to explain the long delay can only be termed as an after thought.
Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that while issuing advertisement (Annexure P-5), the respondent- Board has arbitrarily fixed the upper age limit as 35 years. In case the appellant was aggrieved of the same, he was expected to knock the doors of this Court immediately, which he did not do. On the other hand, he submitted his application in pursuance of the advertisement knowing fully well that he was not qualified for the post of Subject Expert (Computer). For the reason that the Letters Patent Appeal No. 2283 of 2011 -5- appellant was overage, his application was not considered by the respondent-Board.
It may not be out of place to mention here that respondent No.4 continues to work on the post of Subject Expert (Computer) since September, 2008. After more than three years, this Court would not entertain the plea of the appellant that he was more meritorious than respondent No.4.
In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The appeal is devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ( T.P.S.MANN )
JUDGE JUDGE
March 27, 2012
satish