Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagram vs The State Of Haryana And Others on 9 May, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064522-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(103) LPA-132-2022 (O&M)
Decided on : 09.05.2024
Jagram ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present:- Mr. Aditya Yadav, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. AG, Haryana.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Consideration in the present letters patent appeal is sought of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2021 passed in CWP-18139-
2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The
learned Single Judge noticed that quashing of the order dated 12.05.2021
(Annexure P-10) was sought which was regarding complaint/representation
with regard to recruitment to the post of Clerk in pursuance to Advertisement
No.01/1986 and 04/1987.
2. The writ petitioner is stated to be belonging to the SC Category
having a merit of 4013 in the said selection process, but apparently no benefit
was granted to him of appointment. The learned Single Judge found that the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064522-DB
LPA-132-2022 (O&M)
directions for issuing the appointment letter were sought in pursuance of the
order passed in LPA-1509-2010 dated 09.11.2012 (Annexure P-2) with all
consequential benefits. It was noticed that writ petition being filed in the year
2021, there was sheer colossal delay in the nature of relief being sought and,
therefore, the learned Single Judge declined to exercise his extra-ordinary writ
jurisdiction, which the writ petitioner was seeking for consideration for
appointment to the post of Clerk. It was noticed that at that point of time the
writ petitioner would have been 24 years old and when the writ petition was
dismissed he would have been 58 years of age.
3. We have gone through the paper-book. It is apparent that the writ
petitioner might have been an aspirant for the said post but only woke up on
account of an order being passed in LPA-1509-2010 on 09.11.2012 wherein
directions were issued that 103 number of vacancies which existed pertaining
to the period from 15.10.1989 to 18.11.1995 were to be filled up strictly on the
basis of the merit list prepared by the respondents. The above said directions
had been issued by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge which was
with regard to the benefit to be given to the writ petitioners alone. In such
circumstances, persons who were not party would have also got the benefit of
the said order.
4. It is apparent that the appellant on his own had never chosen to
agitate for his grievances at any time qua the selection process 1986 and 1987.
After the order of the Division Bench, he filed contempt petition bearing
No.COCP-2763-2016, which was disposed as withdrawn with liberty to avail
his remedy in accordance with law vide order dated 07.12.2016 (Annexure P-
8). Thereafter, he started approaching the respondent and eventually the CM
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064522-DB
LPA-132-2022 (O&M)
Window gave the information on 12.05.2021 (Annexure P-10) that his name in
the office record as such was shown as Jagraj instead of Jagram. The
appellant then chose to challenge the said order dated 12.05.2021 before the
learned Single Judge, which as noticed was rejected on the ground of delay.
Even during the intervening period also when the contempt petition was
disposed of, the representation was only filed on 29.06.2020 (Annexure P-9)
after a period of 4 years, on which information was supplied.
5. It is, thus, apparent that the appellant has never agitated for his
grievances and now seeks to get the benefit of directions of the Division
Bench. The Writ Court being an extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, the lack of
bonafide at this belated stage and the actual benefit which can be held out have
also to be kept in mind. In such circumstances, we are of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge was well within its discretion not to
entertain the writ petition, while dismissing the same at the initial stage.
6. On an earlier occasion on 22.11.2023, the Coordinate Bench had
also directed that the State should give information whether the judgment
passed in LPA-1509-2010 has been complied with or not. We have perused
the affidavit of the Secretary of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission in
COCP-502-2013 (Annexure P-6), in which it has been mentioned that names
of 103 candidates strictly on the basis of merit position in the merit list had
been recommended by the Commission to the various departments for
appointment to the post of Clerk. In such circumstances, we feel that the
orders of the Division Bench had been duly complied with, which would be
clear from the affidavit filed in the said contempt petition.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064522-DB
LPA-132-2022 (O&M)
7. Resultantly, we do not feel it is a fit case to interfere in the order
of the learned Single Judge. The present letters patent appeal is hereby
dismissed in limine.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
09.05.2024 JUDGE
Naveen
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
