Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 23 December, 2014
Author: Rajiv Narain Raina
Bench: Rajiv Narain Raina
CWP No.26414 of 2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.26414 of 2014
Date of Decision: 23.12.2014
Harpreet Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.(Oral)
The petitioner stakes a claim to appointment as a Constable from a recruitment process conducted as long as back as in 2010 and 2011. His roll No.322 figures in a list of selected candidates which was published sometime during the aforesaid period. The mere selection was not converted into an appointment to confer on him any indefeasible right to maintain an action in Court. Today, the petitioner has approached this Court for the first time byway of this petition after about three years of the accrual of the cause of action and prays he was wrongly left out of the race for the job. He says that he has made representations and served a legal notice on the respondent/s in which he claims consideration for appointment. Counsel submits that a direction should go to the DGP to consider his case. I would MANJU 2014.12.24 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.26414 of 2014 -2- normally have dismissed the petition on account of delay and laches but withhold from doing so as not to foreclose the case of the petitioner for all times.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, a request is issued to the DGP, Punjab to examine if anything can be made of the claim. It will be open to the DGP to keep in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10 on the question of non-statutory repeated representations which do not make for fresh causes of action and disinvite bar of limitation. As also the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. vs. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006 on the point of delay that where a suit is barred by limitation for the relief claimed it would be proper for the writ court not to interfere and decline interference unless the relief is fundamental right based and the case is prima facie strong on merits. The petitioner has not pleaded when was the last offer of appointment in the recruitment drive 2010-11 given and person joined and whether the process is covered by Law 23 of the Rules of Cricket and has become a dead ball. These facts are in the domain of the department.
Needless to say that the DGP, Punjab would consider not so much the representations/legal notice but mostly the reason for denial of appointment from the select list and whether it was in accordance with facts, rules and the applicable law by way of a cross check of past events and that everything is in order viv-a-vis the claim laid in Court.
Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of with the above request which is made purely in the interest of justice so that the petitioner knows where he stands and carries no further rancour in his heart that he MANJU 2014.12.24 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh CWP No.26414 of 2014 -3- was not heard on merits either by the administrator or by the Court.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 23.12.2014 manju MANJU 2014.12.24 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document High Court Chandigarh