Mamta And Another v. State Of Punjab And Others

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 28763 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.04.2021 Mamta and Another ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Sonpreet S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Maloo Chahal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

The petitioners participated in the recruitment drive for selecting Lady Constables. In the year 2016, the result of the examination was declared. The petitioners were recruited on temporary basis. Thereafter, on account of certain errors, the select list was revised and petitioner No.1 was placed at serial No.3, whereas petitioner No.2 was placed at serial No. 7 in the wait list. The petitioners claim that a writ be issued directing the respondents to appoint them as the persons mentioned at serial No.1 and 2 in the wait list have already been appointed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were removed from their services on 28.11.2017 without giving any show cause notice. He further submits that now petitioner No.1 is at serial No.1, whereas petitioner No.2 is at serial No.5 in the wait list and various posts are lying vacant.

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.04.06 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Civil Writ Petition No. 28763 of 2017 (O&M) It would be noted here that the wait list was prepared in the month of May, 2017. Learned counsel was repeatedly requested to inform the Court about the period of validity of the wait list. He, however, submits that no life has been prescribed. Learned counsel admits that no one, lower in merit than the petitioners, has been appointed. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed on purely temporary basis. Hence, dispensing with the services of the petitioners cannot be faulted with, particularly when the regularly selected candidates, who are more meritorious than them, have been appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in similar cases, certain orders have been passed. However, he does not dispute that the aforesaid orders are with regard to the candidates, who are placed higher in the wait list than the petitioners.

In the absence of any right, the petitioners cannot pray to the Court for issuance of a writ.

In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge April 01, 2021 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2021.04.06 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document