Rajpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 9597 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 May, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061499



                                                      2024:PHHC:061499

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

235
                                             CWP-17825-2021
                                             Date of decision : 03.05.2024

Rajpreet Singh                                                ....Petitioner

                                 V/S

State of Punjab and others                                  ....Respondents

CORAM :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:    Mr. Laxman Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

                                 ****

NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under

Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of

mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue

as Mali on contract basis till regular recruitment to the post of Mali is

made in the office of respondent No.3.

2. While issuing notice of motion on 09.09.2021, the

following order was passed :-

"Petitioner-Rajpreet Singh has filed the present petition, inter alia with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue as Mali on contract basis in view of his past over a decade of service till regular recruitment is made.

Learned Sr. Counsel submits that apart from the other facts given in the writ petition, recently in pursuance to Advertisement Annexure P-5 issued in the month of July 2021, the petitioner had joined on the post of Mali. He submits that services of the petitioner have been dispensed

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061499

2024:PHHC:061499

on 23.08.2021 and since then, he is not being allowed to continue his services.

Learned Sr. Counsel also submits that there is an apprehension that respondents shall engage another contractual employee replacing the petitioner. He relies upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Hargurpartap Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported as 2007 (13) SCC 292.

Notice of motion for 25.01.2022 In the meantime, the respondents are directed to give preference to the petitioner in case fresh appointment is made once again by contract on the same post."

3. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3, it has

been stated as under :-

"2. That in this regard it is submitted that the petitioner had been in employment as Mali contractual basis, Sainik Board from 20 Sep 2016 for different terms with breaks in between as under :-

              Sr.No. Designation            From        To       Remarks

                (a)         Mali        20 Sep 16 07 Jun 17    09 Months

                (b)         Mali        12 Jun 17 04 May 18 11 Months

                (c)         Mali        11 May 18 07 Apr 19    11 Months

                (d)         Mali        15 Apr 19 10 Mar 20 11 Months

                (e)         Mali        18 Mar 20 21 Aug 20 05 Months

                (f)         Mali        01 Sep 20 31 Jul 21    11 Months

3. That according to the applicable rules the petitioner has been selected by the interview board and his contract concluded on 31 Jul 2021. It is worth to mention that petitioner being civilian is eligible for the appointment as per rules. The conditions for the appointment of the Mali is as per Appendix 'C' "Ex service man or trained civilian Mali not more than 40 years of age" and should be proficient in his job and should have at least three years experience from some reputed set up". The true copy of

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061499

2024:PHHC:061499

applicable rules for the Sainik Rest House in the state of Punjab is Annexure R-1.

4. That the interview for the post of Mali has conducted on 23 Jul 2021 in view of the advertisement dated 17 Jul 2021. The petitioner got selected but subsequently the interview proceeding have been cancelled vide letter dated 23 Aug 2021. The true translated copy of the letter dated 23 Aug 2021 is Annexure R-2.

5. That as the fresh advertisement is yet to be issued, therefore, no appointment has been made till date after the completion of the contractual period of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner will considered as and when recruitment will be made according to the service rules."

4. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in their

written statement as reproduced above, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the instant petition has been rendered infructuous

and the same may be disposed of as such. He further submits that liberty

may be granted to the petitioner to approach this Court at a subsequent

stage, if the need so arises.

5. Disposed of as having become infructuous with liberty as

aforesaid.

03.05.2024                                             (NAMIT KUMAR)
kothiyal                                                  JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned:                Yes/No
             Whether Reportable:                       Yes/No




                                  3 of 3