HARVINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner was interviewed for the post of Driver on May 12, 1997. Since then, he has not been offered the appointment. The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.P.No.17450 of 2003, which was disposed of by this court by passing the following order : - "The petitioner has fifed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus that the petitioner may be appointed as a driver. In the writ petition, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had ever made a demand to the respondents in this regard. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the present petition is not maintainable unless the petitioner approaches the respondents and makes a demand for relief claimed by him in the present petition. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the respondents for the redress of the grievance, if so advised in accordance with law."

(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that even at that stage, this Court had observed that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had ever made a demand to the respondents for being appointed as driver. However, the petitioner was permitted to make necessary representation, if so advised. The petitioner, thereafter served a legal notice dated January 21, 2004 which is attached to this writ petition as Annexure P -6. The respondents have not given any reply to the aforesaid notice. Now, a prayer is made in the present writ petition for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on the post of driver. The petitioner has also pleaded that CWP No.6723 of 1998 in which the same relief is claimed is pending in this Court after admission. The aforesaid petition had been filed by some of the workers who had also appeared in the interview but were not appointed.

(3.) WE are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid conclusions are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner and a large number of other persons appeared for interviews between April 21, 1997 to April 28, 1997 in response to advertisement dated December 12, 1996. The petitioner is, however not in possession of interview letter, and, therefore he has not been able to attach the same to the writ petition. The Corporation advertised 240 posts by advertisement dated April 9, 1997. On September, 12, 1997, the respondent -Corporation advertised 240 more posts of Drivers. The petitioner passed the driving test on the basis of earlier interview. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have given appointments only to the applicants belonging to the Punjab Ex -servicemen Corporation. Therefore, 100% reservation has been made in favour of the Ex -servicemen. The petitioner and other persons who were duly qualified and had passed the driving test have not been considered for appointment.