CWP No.12706 of 1991 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.12706 of 1991 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2011 Lakhbir Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Dharam Vir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Pawar, Addl. AG, Punjab. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate and Mr. P.S. Walia, Advocate, for respondents No.6 and 27. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner has challenged the selection of candidates to the post of Secretary in the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Societies Ltd. The consideration of appointment was to 60 posts and the challenge by the petitioner was on the ground that no valid criteria had been laid down for the selection. The entire selection was done only through viva- voce that allowed for a large subjectivity and eliminated due recognition of merit. It appears that the candidates have also assumed the posts and a consideration of whether the selection was properly done or not after two CWP No.12706 of 1991 (O&M) [2] decades becomes merely academic. 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner no doubt was already working in another Cooperative Society but he was eminently qualified being a graduate and having a diploma in Cooperation. I do not think, a relief can be granted to the petitioner at this length of time. Learned counsel states that if there is still a vacancy available, the petitioner could be considered now. I am afraid, I have to decline the same for selection through vacancy that existed 20 years back and the selection which had also been completed at the time when the writ petition was filed could not secure to the petitioner a right to the post for consideration. Admittedly, the appointment was made through some selection process and I will not think it is appropriate to draw an interview penal to consider only the candidature of the petitioner. In my view the relief, which is sought in the petition has become infructuous by sheer length of time. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. JULY 20, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE