IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10577 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision:07.03.2011 Tarsem Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 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 writ petition contains a challenge to the selection of respondents 5 to 13 as Executive Officers Class-I in Municipal Committee of Punjab. The contention of the petitioner was that he was initially selected as Clerk in the Municipal Committee at Chheharta on 05.04.1969 to hold the post as Incharge and he ought to have been, therefore, selected over other persons, who arrayed as respondents 5 to 13. The grounds of challenge, inter alia, were that the Selection Committee was not properly constituted and the members had been nominated without notification. There have been gross irregularities, favourtism and nepotism in the manner of selection. The petitioner had Civil Writ Petition No.10577 of 1989 (O&M) - 2 - better claim to merit than the selected candidates. 2. A challenge to a selection process, which had not been stayed by any order of this Court, cannot survive for consideration after 21 years. Even a post held by a person as in-charge cannot grant to such person a lien over such post or secure to such person a priority in consideration. In Pabitra Mohan Dash Versus State of Orissa-(2001) 2 SCC 480, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person, who held a post as headmaster in-charge cannot claim right to the post against the rules prescribing minimum qualification, which he did not possess. Even if the constitution of Selection Committee had been wrong, the matter cannot be reopened for consideration of the petitioner's case, for, if he had been appointed, he should have been superannuated by now. He was said to have been appointed as a Clerk in the year 1969 more than 42 years prior to the date when the case is taken up. 3. The learned counsel states that yet another case of similar relief was the subject of adjudication in CWP No.9104 of 1989 and would seek for a disposal on the same terms. I will not have the benefit of the order, as the petitioner has not been able to give me the details of the order in the said case. I do not think that it makes any difference so long as the basis for the dismissal of the petition is that the relief claimed cannot any longer avail to the petitioner. 4. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.03.2011 sanjeev