IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 6987 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : NOVEMBER 10, 2009 SAHIB SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Ms. Kiran Verma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Patwari in Civil Writ Petition No. 6987 of 2009 2 the Revenue Department under handicap quota and set aside memo dated 11.6.2008 (Annexure P-8). It has been pleaded in the petition that the petitioner has paralysis of the right lower limb on account of Polio. The disability has been assessed at 50%, which is permanent in nature, as would be evident from the Certificates, Annexures P1 to P-3. The petitioner registered himself with the Employment Exchange, Amritsar on 14.2.2003, which has been renewed annually from time to time. Certain similarly placed persons had filed a petition before this Court to fill the back-log of 3% posts from handicap quota. This Court had issued directions while dealing with CWP 14167 of 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, prays for indulgence seeking employment under the handicap quota. In para-7 of the petition, it has been pleaded that respondent No.2 had adopted the procedure of back door entry. When the petitioner came to know that the posts are going to be filled up as a consequence of the order passed in CWP 14167 of 1997, the petitioner made an application (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.2 to seek employment as Patwari. The application was recommended for necessary action. The petitioner, thereafter, visited the respondents a number of times, however, got no relief. Reply has been filed by way of affidavit of Shri Kahan Singh Pannu, I.A.S., Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar. It has been brought out that in deference to order passed by this Court in CWP 14167 of 1997, an advertisement was issued for filling Civil Writ Petition No. 6987 of 2009 3 up vacant posts of Patwari from disabled/handicap quota. The advertisement was given on 9.8.2000 in two daily newspapers in vernacular. Public notices were affixed at conspicuous places, as required, so as to give wide publicity to enable all eligible persons to compete. The petitioner did not apply for the post. 12 persons have been selected against the advertised posts. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has pointed out that the petitioner, in fact, had no occasion to apply in view of the fact that he registered himself in the Employment Exchange in February, 2003 i.e. much after advertisement of the posts. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has further apprised the Court that there has been no appointment after the appointment in response to the advertisement made in the year 2000. I have considered the rival pleadings and contentions. It is the asserted case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner registered himself in the year 2003 in the Employment Exchange. It further remains undisputed that the petitioner did not apply for the post of Patwari in response to the advertisement issued in the year 2000. It further transpires from the written statement that in deference to the order passed by this Court in CWP 14167 of 1997, the posts of Patwari were filled up from handicap/disabled quota. The facts stated on behalf of the respondents have not been controverted. The petitioner, under the circumstances, has not been able to show either discrimination or a right to be considered for selection and appointment, he having not applied for competing under advertisement given on 9.8.2000. Civil Writ Petition No. 6987 of 2009 4 In view of the above, I find no ground to invoke the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. November 10, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?