Mohit Angurala vs State of Punjab and others

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the

respondent, Punjab State Education Department to consider his

claim for appointment to the post of Computer faculty against the

Scheduled Caste (R & O) Category.

Brief factual matrix is that advertisement dated

03.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) was issued by the Punjab Information

and Communication Technology Education Society (PICTES)

inviting applications for recruitment to 700 posts of Computer

faculty on contractual basis. As per reservation provided, 70 posts

were reserved for SC (R & O) Category.

Present petitioner applied in response to the

advertisement and in pursuance to the selection process

undertaken, he secured 37.75 marks. Petitioner did not fall within

the zone of consideration in the first counselling and as such was

not called. However, petitioner participated in the second process

of counselling conducted on 11.03.2013. In such process other

candidates who had been bracketed in merit and had also secured

37.75 marks were issued appointment letters on the basis that they

were elder in age to the petitioner.

It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that information

was sought under the provisions of Right to Information Act as

regards the number of candidates who have not joined on the post

under the SC (R & O) Category. In response thereto petitioner was

informed that there are 07 vacant slots of Computer faculty in the

SC (R & O) Category.

The precise claim of the petitioner is that once a post

has not been consumed and a meritorious candidate as per merit

list prepared is available then the vacancy ought to be filled up by

inviting the candidate next in order of merit.

Counsel further submits that the State Government is

under a Constitutional mandate to fill up the posts that are

reserved for various categories and as such the action of the

respondent department in not inviting the petitioner to join on the

post which has not been filled up would be violative of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Having heard counsel for the petitioner at length, this

Court is of the considered view that the prayer made in the instant

petition cannot be accepted as a highly belated claim is sought to

be set up. The present writ petition suffers from delay and laches.

Counsel concedes that the petitioner had participated

in a process of counselling conducted on 11.03.2013. Thereafter,

information was sought under the Right to Information Act as

regards vacant post of Computer faculty under the SC (R & O)

Category pertaining to the advertised post and such information

was supplied on 15.11.2013 itself. Apparently, petitioner

submitted a representation dated 15.04.2014 staking a claim to be

appointed being a meritorious candidate and by virtue of having

secured 37.75 marks. Clearly, after submitting a representation

dated 15.04.2014 petitioner slept over his rights and ultimately

woke up to file CWP No.9167 of 2017 and which was also

permitted to be withdrawn on 06.09.2017 as per prayer made by

counsel representing the petitioner. Thereafter, a legal notice

dated 15.09.2017 was served and which has not evoked any

response. Resultantly, the instant writ petition.

There is no justification coming forth as regards the

inordinate delay of 04 years on the part of the petitioner in having

approached the writ Court. Counsel has made an attempt to

overcome the obstacle of delay by citing the instance of one

Jaspreet Singh who even though belongs to the General Category

but has raised a similar claim by filing CWP No.7199 of 2015 and

which writ petition is stated to be pending before this Court and

fixed for motion hearing on 26.02.2018.

This Court will not permit the petitioner to gain any

impetus from the pendency of CWP No.7199 of 2015 filed by

Jaspreet Singh who was a General Category candidate and had

also applied for the post of Computer faculty in the same very

recruitment process.

Such view is being taken for the reason that Jaspreet

Singh having not been offered appointment against vacant post

and being next in order of merit was vigilant as regards his rights

and had filed CWP No.16168 of 2014 without any delay. Such writ

petition was disposed of on 17.10.2014 with directions to the

respondent authorities to consider and to take a final decision on

his representation vide order dated 17.10.2014 while disposing of

CWP No.16168 of 2014. Claim of Jaspreet Singh was rejected by

passing a speaking order dated 09.12.2014 which has further been

assailed by him without delay in terms of filing CWP No.7199 of

2015. Present petitioner as such cannot cite the instance of

Jaspreet Singh to overcome the hurdle of delay.

This Court would have no hesitation in observing that

the present petitioner is a fence sitter. Even though the State

Government is obligated to fill up the advertised post as per merit

prepared and cannot withhold an appointment against vacant post

without any justifiable basis, still that does not mean that a

candidate who had participated in a selection process would have

the liberty and luxury of choosing the time of approaching the writ

Court. Petitioner ought to have agitated the matter immediately

after receiving information in the year 2013 itself as regard vacant

post of Computer faculty in the SC (R & O) Category. Even if a

representation had been submitted, it was expected of the

petitioner to have approached the writ Court to agitate his claim

within a reasonable time frame.

Petition suffers from delay and laches and is dismissed

on this score alone.

Dismissed.