Dinesh Kumar vs State of Punjab and Others

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The petitioner applied for the post of Hindi Master against the Physically Handicapped category in pursuance to the advertisement dated 27.10.2006. In pursuance to the selection process that was conducted, the name of the petitioner figured at Sr. No. 2 in the list of selected candidates, which was issued on 24.11.2006. In the light of such selection, the appointment letter was issued to the petitioner on 8.10.2007 in pursuance to which he joined on the post and is working as such. The present writ petition was filed raising a grievance that a candidate reflected below the petitioner in the select list at Sr. No. 3 namely Chiman Lal had been issued appointment letter on 8.12.2006. Entire claim of the petitioner was that he is entitled to be appointed on the post of Hindi Master with effect from the same date on which a junior has been granted appointment in the same very process of selection.

Upon notice of motion having been issued, a joint reply on behalf of respondents nos. 1 to 3 has been filed in Court today and the same has been taken on record. Copy has been furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner.

Appended along with the written statement is Annexure R-I, which is an order dated 3.12.2012. In the light of such order the petitioner has been held to be granted seniority on the basis of his deemed date of joining i.e. 22.12.2006, which is at par with his junior Chiman Lal. The benefit of pay fixation has been granted on a notional basis and it has been recited that the arrears of salary shall be determined for the period starting w.e.f. 8.10.2007 and shall be paid to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of such order dated 3.12.2012 at Annexure R-I submits that nothing further survives in the writ petition.

Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. Petition disposed of.