IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17075 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 08, 2009 Kewal Singh .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Another .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. A.D.S. Jattana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing office noting dated 3.2.2005 (Annexure P-14) as well as Office order in the office noting dated 26.6.2007 (Annexure P-16). Further, prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Moga to allow the petitioner to join his duty as Sewadar (Peon). CWP No.17075 of 2008 [2] It has been pleaded that the petitioner comes from weaker section of the society and applied for a job in employment exchange, Jalandhar. The petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 10.2.1983 by the Director Consolidation, Punjab. Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Sewadar. The petitioner was posted at Jalandhar in the Office of Consolidation Officer. In the year 2002, the petitioner came to know that his parent department i.e. Consolidation Department was to be abolished on 31.12.2002. Being apprehensive of being unemployed, the petitioner applied for leave under Government Circular (Annexure P-5) which makes provision for 5 years special leave so that employees can make their own avenue for self employment. Copy of the application for leave has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. Perusal of Annexure P-6 indicates that the petitioner applied for earned leave w.e.f. 16.10.2002 to 30.10.2002 to go abroad. Reference to provision for special leave has been made. Request of the petitioner was accepted and vide Annexure P-7 dated 10.10.2002, Earned Leave was sanctioned to enable the petitioner to get Visa to visit London, from CWP No.17075 of 2008 [3] 16.10.2002 till 30.10.2002. As per the pleaded case, the petitioner got Visa to go to England. Accordingly, the petitioner wrote to the Department vide Annexure P-9 to grant one month’s leave. No document has been placed on record that would indicate that the leave was sanctioned. The fact remains that Earned Leave was sanctioned only from 16.10.2002 to 30.10.2002 as would be evident on perusal of Annexure P-7 as noticed above. In Para 8, it has been pleaded that the petitioner came to know through his relative that services of the petitioner had been transferred and the petitioner has been appointed as Sewadar in the office of respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Moga. The petitioner immediately wrote back to respondent No.2 to accept his joining report and grant leave for two years from 25.11.2002 to 24.11.2004. Letter in that regard has been placed on record as Annexure P-10. Stand of the respondents in the context of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner sent his joining report while he was still in England. The petitioner did not personally join duty in the office of Deputy CWP No.17075 of 2008 [4] Commissioner, Moga. The joining report was sent by registered post from South Hall, London (UK). Since the petitioner did not go personally to submit his joining report, therefore, application for leave was rejected. On abolition of Department of Consolidation, the petitioner was given avenue of employment in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Moga. The petitioner failed to join duty with respondent No.2 and hence he has no right. I find that challenge in the petition is to office noting, Annexure P-14 and P-16. The order passed as a consequence of office noting has neither been placed on record nor challenged. It has not been pleaded anywhere as to whether any such order was passed at all. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, and in particular the fact that petitioner had been sanctioned Earned Leave from 16.10.2002 to 30.10.2002 and further, that petitioner failed to join duty with respondent No.2 despite having come to know of his employment there, petitioner has no right to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. I do not find that right of the petitioner has been violated. I further do not find that respondents have committed any illegality or that the action CWP No.17075 of 2008 [5] of the respondents, in any way, is arbitrary. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) September 08, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?