Punjab-Haryana High Court
Darbara Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 November, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153872
CWP-5503-2000(O&M)
-1-
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5503-2000(O&M)
Date of decision:-18.11.2024
Darbara Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present : Mr. Bikramjit Singh, Advocate
for petitioner.
Ms. Amrita Garg, AAG, Punjab.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)
1. Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the
nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him against the
post of Punjabi Lecturer.
2. A brief summary of facts leading to the filing of the petition
is that the petitioner joined as S.S. Master on 12.02.1985 for 89 days at a
Government School at Tarsika, District Amritsar and subsequently he
was permanently selected for the said post. Pursuant to applications
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153872
CWP-5503-2000(O&M)
invited by the respondent - State, petitioner was selected and appointed
as a Lecturer vide appointment letter dated 18.08.1994, Annexure P1.
The appointment came to be challenged in a number of writ petitions
and vide judgment dated 28.09.1994, this Court upheld the selection to
the extent of the advertised posts and the services of the persons
appointed in excess of the advertised posts were terminated. SLP filed
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 27.08.1997. As
there was an urgent need of Lecturers, respondent No.2 appointed all the
persons, who were earlier selected on regular basis, including the
petitioner, on ad hoc basis vide order dated 05.10.1994, Annexure P2.
Petitioner joined the post of Lecturer on ad hoc basis, but later opted to
join back his original post of S.S. Master on 24.01.1995. The respondent
- State notified the Punjab Special Recruitment of Teachers Act, 1997
whereby, all teachers who were appointed in the year 1994 whose
services were terminated upon the decision of the writ petition, were to
be appointed on regular basis against vacant posts. The statute was
challenged and by judgment passed in CWP No.18504 of 1997, it was
set aside by this Court. The State Government incorporated the Punjab
Recruitment of Teachers Act, 1999 (for short "the 1999 Act"), Annexure
P5, to accommodate the teachers, who were terminated as a result of a
decision of this Court. The posts were re-advertised and the petitioner
submitted an application dated 11.01.1995, Annexure P6. Petitioner
received a letter dated 07.02.2000, Annexure P10 requiring him to
furnish all documents, but an appointment letter was never issued.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153872
CWP-5503-2000(O&M)
3. Upon notice, the writ petition has been contested by the
respondents by filing a written statement wherein it has been stated that
the petitioner never applied for the post within the time fixed by the
respondents. Petitioner has filed a replication reasserting his claim.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
5. A categoric stand has been taken by the respondents that a
direction was issued by the High Court on 04.08.1999 in CWP No.8457
of 1999 to appoint persons like the petitioner on temporary basis and to
file an affidavit within two weeks. In deference thereto, a public notice
was published in leading newspapers on 18.09.1999 inviting
applications from all eligible candidates by 25.09.1999. This application
was to be submitted to respondent No.2 and it was specifically
mentioned that no claim would be accepted after the due date. Petitioner
did not submit his claim up to or on 25.09.1999. He continued working
as regular S.S. Master at a Government School at Bal Kalan, District
Amritsar on regular basis. No document has been placed on record by
the petitioner to show that he had applied within the time specified for
the job in the public notice. Reliance placed by the petitioner on the
applications submitted by him prior and subsequent to the public notice
would not advance his case. As the petitioner failed to apply before the
cut off date, he cannot stake his claim to the appointment by filing the
instant writ petition.
6. Petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed with no
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153872
CWP-5503-2000(O&M)
order as to costs.
7. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed off.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
18.11.2024 JUDGE
Brij
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
