← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/5053/2024dismissed

Deepak v. State Of Haryana And Others

2024-03-11Mr. Justice Harsimran Singh Sethi3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on :11.03.2024 DEEPAK .PETITIONER

Versus

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS . . . RESPONDENTS

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI PRESENT: Mr. Kapish Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana.

**** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner should be allowed to join on the post of Steno-typist (Group-C) in pursuance to his selection and appointment letter dated 10.01.2022, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-3.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had competed for the post in question and was selected and the petitioner was asked to join the services vide appointment letter dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-3), but as the petitioner was already working with the Government of India and he was not relieved from the office concerned, he could not join on the post of Steno-typist (Group-C). As of now the petitioner intents to join on the post of Steno-typist (Group-C) but the

-22024:PHHC:034181 respondents are not allowing the petitioner to join on the post in question. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submits that even in Clause 13 of the appointment letter dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-3), it has been duly mentioned that in case, the petitioner accepts the offer, he has to report himself for the duties within a period of one month from the date of receipt of appointment letter and he will be allowed to join on the post in question, otherwise, his name will be sent back to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission.

5.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6.

The only argument which has been raised in the present petition is that the petitioner was already working with the Government of India and he could not get himself relieved from the previous office, now, he intends to join the duties in pursuance to the offer of appointment dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-3) hence, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to join the duties on the post in question.

7.

It may be noticed that the offer of appointment dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure P-3) is conditional. It was duly mentioned in the appointment letter dated 10.01.2022 that the petitioner have to join the duties within the period of one month from the receipt of appointment letter, failing which, his name will be returned to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission. As the petitioner fails to join the duties in pursuance to the offer of appointment dated 10.01.2022 (Annerxure P-3), his name has already been returned to Haryana Staff Selection Commission. As of now, the offer of an appointment does not stand in favour of the petitioner as the same has already lapsed its

-32024:PHHC:034181 validity keeping in view the fact that the petitioner did not join on the post in question within the prescribed time.

8.

Hence, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case recorded herein above, no ground is made out for interference in the present petition, hence the present petition stands dismissed. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 11.03.2024 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No