LPA 914 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 914 of 2011 Date of decision 23 . 5.2011 Amarjeet Singh . Appellant Versus . Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr.Balwinder Singh , Advocate for the appellant 1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? M.M.KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 8.4.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge holding that the averments made in the writ petition are wholly vague and do not prompt any judicial adjudication. The view of the learned Single Judge is discernible from the perusal of the following para of the judgement: “1. There is no specific allegation levelled against any of the selectees, i.e. respondent nos. 4 to 10 regarding their qualification. Neither required qualification is specified nor qualification possessed by the private respondents has been disclosed. In what manner the private respondents lack qualifications is not disclosed or alleged. 2. Relationship of the selectees with any of the members of the Board of Directors is not specified to LPA 914 of 2011 2 enable this Court to conduct scrutiny of the same. Allegations are totally vague inviting no judicial intervention. 3. Petitioner claims to have made application in September, 1993. Respondents in their reply particularly in paragraphs 4,6 and 7 have specifically stated that the petitioner never applied for any post in question lying with respondent no.1- Bank. All these questions are disputed questions of fact and without any specific averments in the writ petition, no intervention is warranted.” 2. The learned Single Judge held that more than 17 years had gone by and it will not be prudent to consider the claim of the petitioner after such a long time particularly in the absence of any specific challenge to the appointment of the private respondents. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant at a considerable length and find that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. The appellant claims to have applied for the post of Junior Clerk. However, the claim has been denied in para 2 of the preliminary objection of the written statement filed by respondent no.1 – Managing Director, Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank wherein it has been stated that the appellant never applied for appointment to the post of Junior Clerk nor he ever submitted any application. Therefore there was no question of considering his candidature for appointment as Junior Clerk. It has also come on record that no qualification of the private respondent nos. 4 to 10 have been disclosed by the appellant which is necessary to adjudicate the LPA 914 of 2011 3 claim that they were not qualified to hold the post of Junior Clerk. In any case no useful purpose would be served by adjudication of the claim of the appellant. Once he himself has not applied for the post, his claim could not be considered. In our view the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the petition. The appeal does not merit admission and the same is hereby dismissed. (M.M.Kumar) Judge (Gurdev Singh) 23.5.2011 Judge okg