IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 77 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 16, 2010 Chander Prakash …Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 12.8.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the prayer of the petitioner-appellant to quash Memo. No. CH-13/HPG/GE/1105, dated 3.6.2008 (P-1). According to the aforesaid memorandum the offer of appointment made to the petitioner-appellant on the post of Assistant Engineer/Electrical (Trainee) under the respondent-Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited (for brevity, ‘respondent-Corporation’) has been LPA No. 77 of 2010 cancelled on the ground that the petitioner-appellant was given the offer on 29.11.2007 but he failed to join nor he completed various formalities. 2. The learned Single Judge noticed in the impugned judgment that the petitioner-appellant kept on representing for extending the time for joining. A representation on that behalf was made on 10.12.2007 and one month’s time was granted vide letter dated 7.1.2008 for completing all the formalities. But the petitioner- appellant did not join even within the extended period of one month. A final notice of 7 days was issued on 13.3.2008 and the petitioner- appellant still did not complete the required formalities nor joined. Eventually the offer of appointment was withdrawn. 3. Mr. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel has argued that the petitioner-appellant has been working on the post of Lecturer in Electrical Engineering, Government Polytechnic College, Jhajjar, since February 2007 and earlier to that he used to work with the respondent-Corporation. He has rendered long service there and the respondent-Corporation has failed to accept his request for granting the benefits for the service he rendered there and, therefore, he claims that the delay in joining has been caused by the respondent- Corporation itself. 4. Having heard learned counsel we are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has gone into the whole controversy in a correct perspective. The reason for non-joining is not an issue for us to adjudicate. It is not disputed that the petitioner- appellant has been working as Lecturer in Electrical Engineering in 2 LPA No. 77 of 2010 the Department of Technical Education Haryana where he is still working. The excuse of non-joining the respondent-Corporation because he has not been given the benefits of past service is not sustainable and cannot be regarded as valid excuse. The offer of appointment has been kept hanging from 29.11.2007 and the respondents have waited for more than six months which eventually led to the withdrawal of the offer of appointment, vide order dated 3.6.2008 (P-1). We find no merit in the contention raised by the petitioner-appellant. The appeal is without any substance and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) August 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3