SANDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the last date of hearing, counsel for respondent No.2 was orally directed to inform if any post is lying vacant. Today, counsel for respondent No.2, on instructions, has informed the Court that one post is lying vacant.

(2.) By this writ petition, the petitioner has claimed that he has to be reinstated to the post of Stenographer -II in the office of respondent No.2. The petitioner was appointed as Steno Typist (English) in the office of respondent No.2 on 28.10.1997 and thereafter he was promoted as Stenographer -II on 1.2.2001. On 2.2.2010, a requisition came from the District Consumer Forum, Ludhiana for filling up of one post of Junior Scale Stenographer. The petitioner admittedly applied through proper channel and his application was forwarded by Annexure R -1. He was selected and was allowed to join. During the period of his probation in the District Consumer Forum, his services were terminated. He filed CWP No.20429 of 2010 which was disposed of on 18.9.2012, with the following directions : -

(3.) In the impugned order, the applicability of the said rule has been denied on the ground that as per that rule, the petitioner could have come back within two years and since two years have expired, the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit thereof. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that once this Court had specifically kept alive his right to ask for reinstatement despite the fact that a period of more than two years had elapsed, it was not open to respondent No.2 to have taken the plea of time in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.