High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/1646/2017dismissed

Chandra Kanta v. Union Of India And ORS

2019-01-08Mrs. Justice Raj Rahul Garg2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P 1646 of 2017 Date of decision : 08.01.2019 Chandra Kanta ......Petitioner versus Union of India and others

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:

Mr. Mahesh Sangwan, Advocate for Mr. Amardeep Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryana Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Petitioner is seeking quashing of advertisement (P-2) advertised by respondent No. 3 wherein the age is not mentioned for the post of 1. Project Director 2. Chief Operating Officer 3. District Functional Manager (Training and Capacity Building) and 4. District Function Manager (Financial Inclusion), which is against the instructions issued by respondent No. 1 Pursuant to advertisement (P-2) , the petitioner participated for post of Project Director being fully eligible. In the advertisement, no age has been mentioned. On notice, a reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.

2 and 3 stating therein that the petitioner was fully aware of the fact that there is no age prescribed for various posts and thus, he cannot challenge the advertisement after participating on the ground that there is no age mentioned for some posts. Further the Haryana State Rural Livelihoods Mission is a Society registered under the Societies Act, as per Memorandum of Association, Executive Committee is competent to frame Rules and Regulations of the Society. As per Human Resources Development Manual framed by the Executive Committee, there is no maximum age prescribed for the post of Project Director.

Pursuant to advertisement (P-2), one Sh Aurbind Sharma has been Gaurav Arora 2019.02.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

appointed on the post of Project Director vide appointment letter dated 20.02.2017 and he has joined the post.

The above said reply was filed on 05.05.2017 and petitioner has not filed replication till date. Further the petitioner cannot challenge the advertisement after participating. The letter dated 21.09.2016 is just a guideline and is not binding upon respondent No. 2 and 3, as recruitment in the Society is governed by Manual. Dismissed.

January 08, 2019 (RITU BAHRI) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Gaurav Arora 2019.02.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh