LPA No.830 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.830 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.01.2010 Anil Kumar ............Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ritu Bahri, Sr. DAG, Haryana. ALOK SINGH, J. 1. By way of present LPA, petitioner is challenging the order dated 2.4.2009 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition by which petitioner sought declaration of result and writ of mandamus to issue appointment letter. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that the Subordinate Services Selection Board (now Commission) i.e. respondent No.3 issued an advertisement inviting applications for 18 posts of Gram Sachiv. Thereafter, in September 1993 some posts of Gram Sachiv were again advertised. That again another advertisement dated 1/1997 (Annexure P-1) dated LPA No.830 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 22.2.1997 was issued by respondent No.3 and the applications were invited for 414 posts of Gram Sachiv for Panchayat Department, Haryana. It was submitted that the appellant/petitioner applied within the stipulated period as mentioned in the above said advertisement, as he had the requisite qualifications required for the selection/appointment and respondent No.3 after scrutiny of the applications as regard the qualifications of the appellant/petitioner called him with other candidates for written test. Written examination was held on 7.2.1999. It was further submitted that the appellant/petitioner and some other candidates qualified the written examination. The respondent No.3 according to its policy and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court called three times candidates vis-a-vis the number of posts advertised in each category. The appellant/petitioner was found eligible and was called for interview which was conducted by respondent No.3. 3. It was further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that appellant was finally selected for the post of Gram Sachiv but his result was withheld by the respondent No.3. 4. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit and it has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that result of the appellant/petitioner has been withheld because of the doubt of the genuineness of his candidature. It was further averted that after publication of result on 7.8.1999, it was incumbent upon the appellant/petitioner to approach the respondent- LPA No.830 of 2009 (O&M) -3- Commission immediately for the declaration of his result but he never represented the Commission before 12.3.2007. Thus, the appellant/petitioner slept over the matter for about 8 years. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Learned Counsel for both the parties fairly stated that result of the appellant/petitioner was withheld, on the ground his candidature was not found to be genuine. Learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that however result of the petitioner was withheld in 1999 but appellant was waiting for the outcome of the result of the writ petitions filed by other candidates. Hence, he did not file writ petition during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. Hence, laches, if any, must be condoned. 7. We are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner. Writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches of about 8 years which was not duly explained. Moreover, as to whether result of the appellant/petitioner was rightly withheld on the ground of genuineness of his candidature is a question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, seeking mandamus to issue appointment letter is not a legal right of any candidate. 8. In view of the above, we do not find any justification to interfere in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. LPA No.830 of 2009 (O&M) -4- 9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 25.01.2010 JUDGE ashish