IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.9532 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.3.2009 Suresh Kumar Khanna ...Petitioner V E R S U S State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present: Mr. K. S. Jaitley, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. AJAY TEWARI, J. The petitioner was recommended for selection as Excise Inspector vide order dated 08.11.1982, however, appointment was not granted to him though even person junior to him was selected. The petitioner challenged the action in this Court where his writ was dismissed. Thereafter, the matter was carried up to Hon'ble the Supreme Court where his civil appeal was allowed vide order dated 19.7.1990 in the following terms:- “It is not in dispute that the appellant was selected by the respondent No.1-Board and his name was recommended to the department for appointment as far back as May 4, 1982. This fact was also intimated to the appellant. Thereafter, successive representations were made by the appellant but in vain. The appellant has never been intimated that the list has elapsed. Nor he was informed that his turn for appointment could not come for want of posts. He has been completely kept in darkness. With such pitiable condition he approached the High Court for relief under Article 226. Unfortunately the High Court has dismissed the writ petition in limine. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Board but not by the State. Mr. Mahabir Singh, learned counsel for the State asked for some more time to file counter. We do not think that at this stage we should grant his request. We have considered the matter and also heard counsel on both sides. We are of the opinion that there is a great injustice done to the appellant by not appointing him, although he has been selected and recommended for appointment with an intimation to him. Not merely that he has not been intimated why he could not be appointed. His case is that appointments were made by pick and choose method. We have no reasons to disbelieve this in the absence of denial. In the circumstances, we are left with no alternative but to issue a direction to the respondents to appoint the appellant forthwith in the post for which he was selected. The appellant is entitled to his costs. So ordered. Appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the order of the High Court.” Vide order dated 5.11.1992, appointment was issued to the petitioner pursuant to the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that he should be granted his due seniority as per the original merit position of the 1982 selections since the denial of appointment to him was completely illegal as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a subsequent decision involving the same department in CWP No.5423 of 2005 decided on 28.2.2006 in the case of Nawab Singh V. State of Haryana and others wherein also appointment was refused to a person who had originally stood selected. This Court had directed the respondents to consider the case of the said employee after giving notice to all the affected persons. In the circumstances, the order of Division Bench of this Court quoted above would apply to the facts of this case. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms. ( AJAY TEWARI ) March 26, 2009 JUDGE ashish